Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has called attention to Clause 113, because it is easy enough for some people not to understand the form that they are filling in, even sometimes in the presence of a member of the Minister’s department in the jobcentre. My real problem with this clause is that it talks about negligence. If you fill in a form in a slapdash manner, that is negligent. I would far prefer something like “knowingly”: in other words, designing to commit some sort of fraud. That would be a much happier arrangement.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I support my noble friend’s amendment. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, I would say that the test of fraud is normally—I think I saw a former Lord Chancellor who would know much better than I—associated with intent and ignorance of the law and is not a defence, but I think in this case it is because we are dealing with the interlocking of very vulnerable people and a new and very different system for people to understand.

There are three or four matters on which if I were asked now whether people needed to declare things, I could not guide them, and I like to think I have some nodding acquaintance with this Bill. For example, a lone parent has a boyfriend who works away. He stays with her overnight one or twice over the weekend. As a result, is she no longer a lone parent? Clearly it will not depend on their sleeping arrangements but on what contribution he makes to their financial arrangements. On a weekend basis, would that be sufficiently substantial to make her no longer a lone parent but part of a couple and therefore falsely declaring if she claims to be a lone parent? I am not clear what would happen in that situation under the Bill. Perfectly reasonably she might regard the fact that as she is getting universal credit she is not a lone parent and he is somebody who comes in as a boyfriend but not a partner.

With housing benefit, you could have a family with a student son who is living at home, going to the local university and working part-time. Should he be declared for housing benefit as a potential contributor to the rent so that non-dependent adult deductions come into play? I do not know. I think it would be quite difficult for that couple to assess.

Let me give another example that we discussed at considerable length and about which the Minister was rightly sympathetic—kinship carers. Conventionally, kinship carers are entitled to claim for child credit and so on if they have the equivalent of the child benefit book, which normally takes about eight weeks to come across. In future, given that child benefit will not necessarily be a separate benefit entitlement, if there is a rotating relationship in which the child goes back to its birth parents for a few weeks and then, because the father or the mother may be an addict of some degree, goes back to the grandparents, at what point and for how long a period of continuous care are the kinship carers entitled to claim the child elements in universal credit? I do not know.

In those three cases—and I could elaborate another six on disability benefits that are becoming clear to us—I would not be able to advise somebody on what they should declare on their forms as being relevant for the consideration of UC. It would be natural for them in those quite complicated situations not to declare things that appear to work against them. They would not be doing it with an intent to deceive. They may think it is a perfectly proper statement of their position as they see it, yet under this clause they could be caught for negligence and fined. That is completely unreasonable.

The one piece of advice I would give the Minister is that whatever he does, whether he claims that this is needed as a reserve power or not, he should not touch it for at least three years until after the Bill has come into practical effect because of the bedding-down issues that it will have. The Minister has to make only one mistake, such as his department suing somebody for penalties for negligence when the department was wrong—and there will inevitably be departmental error; there always is when you introduce new systems—and the whole of the good will behind this Bill will disappear overnight.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, my noble friend gives some very good examples of how easy it might be to make mistakes, particularly when the universal credit is quite low. I remind noble Lords that on 24 October the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, told us how easy it is to make mistakes. When he applied for his retirement pension, he got it wrong. Was he being negligent? No. It was an example of how easy it is to fill in a form wrongly. It is not necessarily negligence.

Apart from that little reminder of how any noble Lord could easily make a mistake, I also wanted to pick up a point made by my noble friend Lady Drake about the expectation that 80 per cent of claimants will be claiming online. Recently a piece of research, Increasing Digital Channel Use Amongst Digitally Excluded Jobcentre Plus Claimants, found that one group of those claimants were what the authors call the “uninterested”. The researchers said that this group will,

“require persuasion or compulsion before they will use digital services, possibly with the threat of a benefit sanction for non-use”.

I would be very grateful if the Minister could assure the Committee that there is absolutely no intention to sanction people for not using online procedures. Some people have a mental block against using computers and we do not want yet another sanction in the system. I know that it was researchers who said this, and not the department, but if he could give us that assurance now, that would be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Amendments 104A and 104B, tabled in my name, are similar in intention to an earlier suggested amendment to Clause 102. These two amendments will ensure that where a claimant’s benefit is paid to a third party, usually a landlord, recovery of any civil penalty, along with recovery of the associated benefit overpayment, may be made by making appropriate deductions from that benefit payment. Currently, there is a slight difference in the wording used by this clause and Clause 102 when specifying that amounts are recoverable. This was unintentional.

Amendments 104A and 104B remove that difference and ensure a consistent read across. This will mean that, in the limited circumstances in which the third party benefit payment is the only one from which we can make a recovery, we can ensure that whenever a civil penalty is imposed, that penalty and the benefit overpayment may both still be recovered by deduction from that benefit.

In every civil penalty case there will always be an overpayment of benefit and we intend that the civil penalty will be added to the overpayment and recovered in the same way. Being unable to recover the civil penalty in the same way as the overpayment would mean that some claimants could evade the consequences of their negligence or failures to provide accurate and timely information and unnecessarily limit the methods of recovery available for civil penalties.

We want to make it clear that the civil penalty is always recoverable from the person at fault, even if in practice the claimant’s benefit is being paid to a third party. The process for recovery of the civil penalty needs to fit appropriately with debt recovery processes. Aligning the wording in new Sections 115C and 115D with that used in Clause 102 helps us to do that.

Amendments 104AA and 104ZA seek to prohibit the setting of targets for the civil penalty and limit our ability to impose a civil penalty to cases in which there has been a failure to provide information. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale asked about negligence. We consider that the requirement of negligence in new Section 115C already implies that there is no reasonable excuse for the failure to take care of their award or claim. However, new Section 115C(1)(b) ensures that if reasonable steps to recover the error have been taken, the penalty will not apply. I certainly understand the possible ramifications if targets were attached to a penalty such as this. It is for exactly those types of reasons that we are not attaching penalties.

Perhaps I may update the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on the figures in the impact assessment and the number of penalties. Last week, on 22 November, a revised impact assessment was issued that reflects updated estimates relating to the new civil penalty. We are assuming that the changes based on assumed overpayments of above £65, rather than the overpayment of £15, which was part of the earlier working assumption, has led to a substantial revision, and the number of penalties that we will consider moves down to 400,000 a year. We expect to make only half of those, 200,000, which is a substantial decrease on the figures mentioned by the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I warn the Minister that that is one of the biggest elephant traps he is setting himself in the entire Bill.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have to make clear that we are taking powers to do this. We do not have to use them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

That is as I would expect from the noble Lord. It is such a wicked question that I am baffled as to the answer. I think everyone is baffled. It is a magnificent question. It has bowled me out on my middle stump. I will have to find out the answer. I will not even hypothesise about where the different funds go. The right analogy for this is when you go to the dentist, having made an appointment, and you fail to attend. The dentist will charge you an amount in many cases in order to discourage that behaviour. When you are giving out a free good, it is very easy for the recipient to abuse it. You counterbalance that by making that somewhat expensive. When you go beyond a free good and you are giving out a positive good, that is even more the case.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the point is that, on any reasonable analogy, the simpler it is for the individual to make an appropriate response such as telling the dentist they cannot come, the more reasonable it is to have a penalty if they fail to do so. The more complicated quantum of knowledge that they are expected to have about their entitlement, and therefore the easier it is to make a mistake or to have a misunderstanding, the more unreasonable it is to have a penalty. Would the noble Lord care to share with us an analogy in civil life as complex as knowledge of this Bill is for the complainant or applicant, rather than the dentist analogy?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I hope that it will be as simple as the dentist analogy. The whole point of introducing universal credit is that we get something as simple as saying yes or no with regard to your situation. The existing position is much more complicated than that. As some noble Lords will have seen when I did a presentation on the universal credit, we are trying to boil it down to simplicity. Where it is complicated, that is prima facie evidence that there is no negligence. The noble Baroness’s suggestion that we might take time to check out how the system is bedding in is not a bad one.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Oh!

[Lord Freud]

Let us not bargain. It is not a bad suggestion. One of the things we want to do—

[Lord Freud]

It is very relevant. One of the things that we are going to be monitoring as we look at the system is clusters of mistakes because, by definition, the system is not working properly where we are in that position. We will need to work this system in carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who is right on a lot of things, gives a warning, which is right. We cannot use this in an arbitrary way. We must have something, just as the NHS, HMRC and the train companies—I suppose everyone has boilingly paid the extra train ticket surcharge when they were on the wrong train—have systems to encourage people to comply with particular rules. It is particularly necessary where you have a system that is not even a free good. You are giving money out, so you have a positive incentive to shade a few inaccuracies without being fraudulent. We just want to keep people straight.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I thought it was very revealing when the Minister said the answers are yes/no. Most of these questions are binary—yes/no—but all the difficult ones, the ones people are going to appeal on, are not yes/no; they are shades of grey. When is a lone parent no longer a lone parent? Does a boyfriend stay one night, two nights or three nights? Does he contribute £20 for his weekend food or £50? Is he on the tenancy agreement? In that case, there is no question. That is a shade. It is a judgment call, not a negligence call. It is the same with the student son. It probably would not occur to parents in social housing that their son, who is at the local university and doing bar work at night, could be in the non-dependent adult deduction range. Why should they think so? It is a line, but they do not know where those lines are drawn.

The Minister is right that if somebody deliberately says, “I am not working and I want JSA”, but is actually earning £200 or £300 on the side in the building trade, that is a yes/no, but most of the issues that go to appeal—most of the difficult issues—are shades of grey, and many of us around this table would not be able to advise somebody. I really do not see how the client could possibly judge whether it was appropriate to tell the department or not.

[Lord Freud]

I do not think that we disagree on this. It would not be reasonable where there is clearly a lot of grey in the assessment, and I do not think a court in the land would allow us to say that someone was being negligent. That is not what negligence means. Negligence means not caring at all and just slamming down the wrong information or having information that you did not bother to put down. That is negligence. Getting something wrong on shades or “It didn’t occur to me” are not negligence and would not be construed as negligence in any court in the land. A lot of this is concern about things that the language does not support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We absolutely will not do that. The noble Baroness drew a comparison with current levels of JSA usage. The online facility that we offer claimants is so markedly inferior that people would not want to use it. We need to make sure that people will want to use the online provision, and we are taking a lot of active steps to look at how to encourage and help people to use it. Indeed, this is one of the discussions that I am currently having with the various groups and charities that are trying to get the most disadvantaged in society online, because that is one way in which they become a full part of the economic life of the country, and indeed of the whole life of the country. They and I see that this could be an immensely powerful force for getting that inclusion. As I said, we will work very hard to encourage people to use it. One does not encourage people to do something that could be life-transforming for them through some of the things which the noble Baroness suggests I might be doing.

The aim of the civil penalty is to reinforce the importance to claimants of providing accurate information that we require in order to administer their claims and awards in advising us when they have a change of circumstance. It is a different issue when someone does something knowingly. That is fraudulent, and we will target that behaviour by looking at tougher punishments than the one for missing a dental appointment—I had better not talk about my teeth. We want claimants to take more responsibility for overpayments and to encourage a positive change in claimants’ future behaviour so that they take proper care of their benefit claims and awards.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made an important point about mental health. We will take that into account. Indeed, that is why we require the claimant to have acted negligently and to have no reasonable excuse. The department must satisfy itself that the claimant has failed to take appropriate care. Each case will be considered individually by the decision-maker, and the penalty will not be imposed if a claimant’s state of health or mental health is considered relevant to the error that has been made.

Amendment 147ZA would mean that a civil penalty could be imposed only on those who failed to notify us of changes of circumstances and the failure resulted in an overpayment, while a claimant who incurred an overpayment by virtue of their negligence and who failed to take reasonable steps to correct the error would evade a penalty. We already help claimants in Jobcentre Plus and, as I have said, we will reinforce that. We believe that everyone should take responsibility for the accuracy of the information they provide in order to receive a benefit, whether that be at the start of their claim or during the life of their claim when there has been a change of circumstances.

As for the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on legal aid, information on benefits and the conditions of entitlement for them is readily available to the general public. If claimants remain uncertain of which benefit is most applicable to them or have a question about their benefit entitlement, they can and should seek further advice from the department. New Sections 115C and 115D will therefore act together to remind claimants that it is just as important that they correctly report their circumstances at the start of the claim as well as report changes that occur within the life of a claim.

I will aim to answer the remaining three questions, having been bowled out on the fourth. On the ability of local authorities to impose fines, we consulted local authorities on the detail of the initiatives in the strategy and on our plans to implement them. Local authorities have provided input to the various projects that we have set up to implement the strategy. We have local authority staff collocated with the DWP and working on the strategy. That includes the sanctions and penalties project, which is doing the work on civil penalties. We will support local authorities in their work to implement the new penalty, which will include providing clear instruction and guidance on how to operate the new scheme. On the £50—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps that would not work. For example, in two side-by-side authorities, a family with two siblings lives with one sibling in each borough. One local authority may decide to exempt in such cases. They have to make 10 per cent cuts and are required to exempt pensioners, which would make 30 per cent cuts. One local authority decides to exempt disabled people all together, so they would have nil. The other does not and the matter is worked out on income. In that situation, how will two disabled siblings who live in two side-by-side boroughs work that out? How will the local authority work out what they should declare, what they should not and what the appropriate penalty could be? It is a complete minefield.

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, there are always difficult and special cases. I suspect that an old lady would not be eliminated entirely. The answer is that there is support for people with particularly tricky circumstances. We will work with local authorities that will be collocated in many cases, especially with the single fraud operation being set up. The shades of grey, which will start to rule out negligence, will be very evident in most of those cases.

In justification of the £50, that sum was chosen because we believe that this is a sufficient amount that will act as a punishment and make claimants more personally responsible for the overpayments they incur and encourage a positive change in their future behaviour. We have also set a significantly lower amount than the harsher punishments available for fraud offences, which reflects the fact that it is directed at the failure to take proper care of a benefit award and is not about fraudulent behaviour. Under the appeal process, the claimant will be able to appeal against the overpayments decisions, the civil penalty or both.

For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to reject Amendments 104AA and 104ZA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Touhig]

Could my noble friend say—perhaps in response to the Minister’s answer to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, when he said that it would depend upon the circumstances, and following on the point just made by my noble friend—whether she thinks it would be helpful if the Minister, before Report, could provide us with the number of cases in which the department has accepted that an overpayment has been its fault and has not pursued it, and the number of occasions on which it has found that it has been the client’s fault and pursued that?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that the power exists for tax credits but not for other benefits. At a briefing session, I asked one of the Minister’s officials— I shall not land that person in it—how often it had been used. Their answer was that they were not absolutely sure. I asked whether it was 20 or 2,000 times. Nearer 20, came the reply—in which case, I wonder where that figure of 200,000 would come from and whether it suggests that a lack of clarity is expected in the forms rather than negligence on the part of the people filling them in.

[Lord Freud]

Let me quickly pick up three issues. First, when I talked about clusters, I meant that, where there are clusters and mistakes, something is clearly going wrong with the way in which we are presenting universal credit. In those circumstances, we would look very hard at fixing that problem and we would not be able to accuse anyone of negligence.

Secondly, I shall look very closely at the run-in to operating the universal credit system. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on lots of things. She is absolutely right that we cannot have a system that demonstrates problems in its run-in phase.

Thirdly, on targets, I need to write to noble Lords. I would not mind forbidding the DWP from ever using those targets in that way—and I could offer it as a deal any day—but a future Government might not want to be so constrained.

--- Later in debate ---

Noble Lords sought an assurance around the appeals process for sanctions. There is a well established appeals process in relation to the imposition of sanctions which will be taken forward into the new regime. A civil penalty may be appealed against. Indeed, as it will be notified to the claimant at the same time as the overpayment decision, this will make it easier for the claimant to appeal against either or both.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I trust this information is reliable, but in today’s press there were quite a lot of stories about how long appeals are taking and that the department—or, rather, following Leggatt, the tribunals system—is having to appoint a further 85 judges to sit on appeals tribunals because of the backlog, which is up to 12 months. Can I have an assurance—I am sure that this must be the case—that, while waiting for an appeal, no interest is ticking up on sanctions, penalties, overpayments or anything like that?

Secondly, checking with the law on tax credit as opposed to what may be the case on UC, I think that nearly all the difficulties with tax credits were not at the initial point of claim but were changes of circumstance and nearly all of them were associated with childcare changes. Half of all lone parents had more than a dozen changes of circumstances in a year, the system never caught up with itself and the computer nearly toppled. How is this going to work in this situation? People’s childcare circumstances inevitably change over half-term, a Baker day, Easter and Whitsun. By the time you keep reporting them or not reporting them—or feeling that you do not need to report them because there has been no reply to the previous report—you could be in a complete mess. I do not see how the Minister is going to manage this.

[Lord Freud]

The answer to the first question is that interest is not ticking.

On the second question, I share the noble Baroness’s concern about how the present childcare system works on reporting, which is why we are producing an entirely new system with a monthly report and a monthly payment system. Basically, how the system will work is that you put in the receipt for what you have paid, and then that payment is repaid on a monthly basis. The problem presented by a change of circumstances will go. Roughly 15 per cent of problems are caused at the initial stage of the original application. It does not seem sensible to privilege one set of mistakes against another when it is a reasonably substantial proportion.

I am very happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to go through these issues in some detail, because I share his and other noble Lords’ concern that we get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords. I think, actually, I withdraw my offer of a meeting, because, given the level of interest, it is probably not appropriate. We should rather have a little seminar where the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is the leader, but I must welcome anyone who wants to attend that, because it does not make much sense to be too exclusive. Does that suit? Let us sit down and see whether there are any cracks in this, as some noble Lords are concerned about.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Sorry, if somebody puts the same information into their applications for universal credit and for localised council tax and the information is negligent or erroneous, though not fraudulent in both cases, are they exposed to two penalties?

[Lord Freud]

No.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Then who will get the money? Will it be the local authority or the department?

[Lord Freud]

When I have worked out the various recipients to the main fund and written, I will let the noble Baroness have a copy of the letter that I send to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Thank you.

[Lord Freud]

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions. In order to hasten things, may I write to her with answers to those questions?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is it not the case that local authorities and the department very sensibly share information on the ATLAS project and therefore that this would follow from that?

[Lord De Mauley]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think I will include that in the written answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am not alone, I know, in acknowledging the vast knowledge of my noble friend Lord Kirkwood in this area. He was, of course, chair of both the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee in the House of Commons—I think I can say that now, if I am not pre-empting. His involvement in this important subject stretches much further than that. I welcome the probe and hope that I will be able to persuade him that the amendment is unnecessary.

The SSAC provides a valuable function and goes about its work very effectively. From my perspective and that of my ministerial colleagues, the relationship between the department and the committee is productive. We enjoy a similar relationship to the one that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, had. More specifically, the SSAC is currently working on a major study of passport of benefits in the light of the impact of these reforms. As my noble friend acknowledged, this is really the most significant ad hoc study by the committee that Ministers have commissioned for many years. It is a wish to look at situations in the widest possible way.

The committee’s current remit does not include the scrutiny of draft regulations made under powers recently enacted by Parliament. As my noble friend pointed out, this is for a period of six months, beginning from the commencement of the relevant enabling power. The amendment would therefore set the clock ticking from Royal Assent in all cases rather than from the commencement of the relevant enabling power. It follows that if an enabling power was commenced at a point more than six months after Royal Assent, regulations under that power would automatically be referred to the committee. I believe that that would be unnecessary. Informal arrangements are already in place in this area. As I explained when we debated Clause 1, we will continue to talk to the SSAC as we move to the implementation stage of this Bill and use the arrangements that are currently in place and that allow us to provide it with information on new powers and regulations made within six months of the commencement of those powers.

Noble Lords are aware that when the Government implement major welfare reforms, the relevant primary powers are sometimes commenced at different times, reflecting the staggered implementation process that can apply in such circumstances. Under the amendment, some of the regulations brought forward in this scenario—those brought forward within six months of Royal Assent—would not be subject to the committee’s scrutiny, but others brought forward subsequently would be, even though Parliament would have approved the primary powers applicable to the reform as a whole. That inconsistency would be undesirable and we do not believe that adding to the committee’s former role in this way would be warranted. Implementing the reforms in this Bill is an enormous undertaking.

A huge number of officials in the department are working on it, and others are working on changes to a very challenging timetable. It follows that the weight of draft regulations following the reforms would place an unreasonable burden on the SSAC if the Secretary of State were required to refer all regulations to the committee made six months after Royal Assent. That point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and I need to confirm that this is an overwhelming process, particularly right now.

I have emphasised that we already have effective informal processes in place in this area. I also believe that the application of the affirmative procedure to, for example, the first core set of universal credit regulations is another safeguard, making it less necessary to consult the SSAC on a formalised basis in respect of those regulations in particular.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think we would all accept that there is a difference between this Bill and, for example, a pensions Bill and its draft regulations, on which the Minister, his officials and his staff need to consult what I would call the professional organisations. These are quasi-technical and may be associated with the process; they have their own exchange and interchange of information and of what they flag up, and so on. In other words, there is a professional body of interested but skilled parties who can negotiate with a department on an equal base, and, as a result, draft regulations may be improved before they subsequently become full regulations.

The trouble with welfare reform and a Bill such as this is that, apart from the charitable organisations and lobby groups that have a wealth of expertise, for the most part there are not the bodies that the noble Lord and his staff would expect to negotiate with in the same way as he would expect to negotiate with business organisations or the NAPF about pension structures. Therefore, the very fact that there might be 200 regulations coming our way means that Members too find that they have no input from professional bodies that are equivalent to those pension bodies but that deal with welfare, in order to help shape our thoughts and give us an extra resource of experience.

This is not necessarily appropriate for Bills for which there are bodies that can serve that function, but for framework Bills and where bundles of regulation are likely to cluster in a particular field—housing here, or the benefit cap there—it would be very helpful for all of us seeking to scrutinise those regulations in due course to have had the input of the SSAC before we commence, because otherwise there is nothing between us, the draft regulations and the framework Bill, and we will not get the appropriate input that we need.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, what we are designing here is a massive undertaking. I know that I set a considerable challenge for the SSAC in the passporting arrangement alone. The noble Baroness and my noble friend ask whether adequate information flows are coming through to Parliament as we consider the regulations. We are in regular contact with the stakeholders on a wide range of issues. We have published a series of detailed policy notes. We are trying to have a very open process.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My issue is that there are no stakeholders as there are in other types of legislation. My argument hinges on that fact. In pensions legislation, and even in some of the disability legislation that is very specialist, such as the Disability Discrimination Act, which is a more legal framework, there are specialist organisations that can negotiate. We have no such organisations with this Bill. We have charities, but they are client-group representatives rather than bodies of equal professional standards, in the way that the Department of Education has teachers, the Department of Health has doctors and so on. The DWP has no equivalent.

[Lord Freud]

I accept the point. In practice, we face lobbyists and stakeholders, although one could argue that the pensions industry is also facing lobbyists, albeit slightly better resourced ones who are more interested. The core issue is what the SSAC can do with this Bill in its scale and size. The SSAC is a relatively small organisation. It has a secretariat of three or four, internal to the DWP. It has 13 or 14 members. When you look at the literally thousands of people who are creating this, it is very hard to imagine an ability to take this in its entirety, with all those regulations for the SSAC to deal with.

The SSAC has two functions. It deals with a regulatory rolling process, which is outside the major revolution that we are talking about. I hope that it will apply itself to particular issues on which we would really value its help. The first example is passporting. It was very much my own view that this would be a good way in which to start this process.

I think that noble Lords in this Committee underplay their own prowess in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

That is why I also support Amendment 113DA, which would abolish charges for those with no alternative but to use the new agency, as well as Amendment 113D, which would at least force the commission to engage with the attitudes and resistance of those non-resident parents who were directly responsible for paying child maintenance.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the speeches that we have heard so far have been extremely powerful and I very much supported the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I shall refer to Amendment 113B in the name of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, as well as Amendment 113DA in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I feel strongly that structures should follow the objectives and not that we should adapt the objectives to be the outcome of whatever structures we think we can best achieve, which is what is going on, I fear, in Amendment 113B. Amendment 113DA is simply wrong and I am frankly amazed that the DWP has come forward with this proposition. It is morally offensive and I do not know from where it has come.

Like others we have the CSA engraved on our hearts. The 1992 legislation was a catastrophe primarily because it insisted on overturning existing court objectives and becoming retrospective, which means that the new system never caught up even though it was entirely well intentioned. I remember defending our intentions on the 2000 legislation in front of the committee chaired at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. We found it difficult to persuade the Treasury to budge beyond a £10 hand-back to women, so we could never get women to co-operate in setting the CSA on their old partners, as there was little in it for them.

The moves established by my noble friend in 2008 to allow women to keep all their maintenance was a triumph, but the problem with voluntarism, which also accompanied it, meant that it became a charter for bullies who did not want to pay, as indicated by my noble friend Lady Lister. We know that the people who pay are the men who need to pay most, not the men who need to pay least. They are the men who have been married, divorced, are older, earn more, have a profound attachment to their children and expect and want to pay. They are honourable and decent men and they are the ones who pay most. They pay and behave admirably. We also know, however, the ones who do not pay. They are the young, feckless men who have never actually lived with the child, who is perhaps the result of an overnight relationship, if we can dignify it with that term—a casual sexual act. They think that they were trapped.

There are the chaotic self-employed who never get their accounts right and never find the money to pay for their children. A group that surprised me are the men in uniform who are often very bitter, judgmental and followers of the language of fault—“She had an affair so it is her fault and I don’t pay”—with little regard for the children. Finally, there is the group mentioned by my noble friend Lady Lister—the men who have remarried, with second families whose new partner is often very hostile to any payment. These men change their address, their job, their name, and even their country to avoid paying.

Add to those problems a flaky computer and the problems of HMT, which is not only unwilling for women to keep their money but refuses to share key information so that NRPs can be tracked through their current records. We were not allowed to deduct even a £5 benefit payment at source. It would have been obvious for HMT computers to talk to DWP computers, but that was not possible either. It is no wonder that there has been a struggle ever since.

I fear that increasingly—with these measures, I am convinced of it—the concept of child support has taken a wrong turning in this country. Unless we accept the amendments moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and my noble friend Lady Sherlock, that wrong turning will become a highway down which the failure to pay child maintenance will rapidly escalate. I strongly believe that statutory payment should be not the last resort but the first. That is how we establish the appropriate level of money that should be paid; you establish a speedy pattern of payment. We know from Australia and all the international research that unless you establish payment early and ensure that it is paid regularly for at least a year, it dies within 18 months or two years. Establish payment early and get it paid regularly and there is a hope that you will get amicable contact arrangements. Then the whole thing becomes a virtuous circle.

Having voluntary payment in which the father can bully his way out of payment, as he too often has done, means that it never gets established. If instead we had statutory payment to begin with and then after six months or a year following regular, reliable payments the reward was voluntary negotiations, that would be wonderful. That would combine the best of all worlds. You would establish the pattern of payment, and then, if the father co-operates in that activity, you could allow that couple to make their own future arrangements. That way the child does not suffer. This way, I fear that the rights of the child to income and support from the father—it is the father in all but 3 per cent of cases—are going to get lost in what I have to say is the department pursuing cost cutting rather than ensuring adequate support for children.

We know that regularly paid maintenance is not only good for children in the signal that it sends from fathers about being committed to their children’s lives, but that it can be the payment above all—all the Alan Marsh research shows this—that lifts a lone parent with a couple of children from below the poverty line to above it. It can be transforming. It is like privatised, old fashioned family credit if it is paid and paid regularly. It will be so paid only if it is established early, and that means through a statutory system in which good behaviour allows you to go on to the voluntary path. I very much fear that in going down the path not just of voluntarism but of trying to get rid of CMEC, which at least was trying very hard to ensure that money was paid to children, we will lose the real benefits that are available to children through the poverty objectives and we will be overcome by the structural problems of seeking to reduce costs. That is highly unfortunate.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I apologise for not being here the whole time. I had to chair quite an important meeting on stalking, but that is another matter. I had not realised until just now that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to which I have put my name, is in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

However, if people are asked to pay, they are entitled to expect a better service. The new statutory scheme will utilise HMRC tax data to help prevent non-resident parents delaying accurate calculations of maintenance. There will be annual reviews of cases to keep them up to date. These changes will be supported by new information technology which will deliver general improvements to the service.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could I therefore ask the Minister a question to which his noble friend responded on a previous amendment? If he is making a power to impose charges, would he at the very least agree that it would be unwise—as well as indecent, as some of us might think—to introduce them for at least two years or so, until the new system has settled down?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I take the general point that they should not come in immediately. We are in fact proposing to introduce the new service and run it for six months before we introduce charges.

The behaviour that my noble friend’s specific amendment would take into account on the part of the applicant is consistent with one objective of the application charge—pursuing alternatives to the statutory service before applying to it—so in that sense it is consistent with our thinking. I would argue, though, that there would be difficulties in collecting hard evidence to show that a parent with care had taken reasonable steps without an inappropriate degree of intrusiveness. However, the amendment does focus our attention on the fundamental issue of access to the statutory service for those who need it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

Perhaps my noble friend will expand on one detail. The amendment seeks an expeditious response within a seven-day period whereas the Government seem to be working to a four-week response time. Is there any way in which I can persuade the Minister to think about at least setting some targets? A month is a long time in a challenged household. It is a gap that we have identified and it will exist. These things will happen. I might be being too ambitious with seven days but my noble friend is being very complacent if he is sticking to 28 days.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I shall be brief. I have a question that we should have asked on the previous group of amendments. What moneys do the Government expect to collect as a result of the £100 fee?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in answer to my noble friend’s question, given the admonishment of my noble friend Lord Freud in an earlier debate I can hardly utter the word “target”. I do not know where he got the figure of 28 days from—it is not familiar to me—but I will answer his question in more detail in writing.

Will the noble Baroness repeat her question?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was going through the impact analysis statement on the changes in CMEC and I cannot find the figures anywhere. We should have asked this on the previous group—it is our fault—but can the Minister tell us how much the Government expect to garner by way of the £100 charge?

[Lord De Mauley]

Given what I said in the debate on charging, I would prefer to write to the noble Baroness about that in due course.