Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 31 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.


Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

I support the position of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for two reasons. I am not sure how my noble friend will respond to this amendment, but my first reason is a philosophical point. I would be amazed if in the number of speeches that my noble friend has made about the Child Support Agency to staff, at conferences, to voluntary groups, he has not emphasised the ability of child maintenance to make a huge difference to the number of children in poverty. I would guarantee that one of his key arguments in his speeches is about the need to address child poverty and that the staff are not debt collection agents, but are in the forefront of trying to overcome child poverty. I would guarantee that my noble friend has made that speech on a number of occasions and that is where I believe it belongs—in speeches made by Ministers on the wider context of the Bill. While I do not dissent from one word of the wishes or outcomes addressed by the noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, like the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I am, however, wary of what I call rhetoric in Bills as opposed to the practical things that Bills seek to change and to effect by legislation. My second point is a practical concern. Perhaps the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Kirkwood, can help me on this point before my noble friend responds. Is the implication of this amendment that CMEC would be expected to distinguish between parents to ensure that it helps the poorest parents first at the expense of other parents, irrespective of the cost? For example, to overcome child poverty and to get an extra £5 to a child, it is legitimate to spend £10 or £15 chasing that child who is poorer, as opposed to giving £20 to another child for which one would need to spend only £10 chasing it up. I understand the honourable nature of that intent, but that brings one up against the constraints of the business and value-for-money contexts within which the agency may work. At that level, it may be more appropriate to deal with it through other channels—not just through child maintenance—such as encouraging lone parents back into the labour market and pursuing the connection, therefore, through to tax credits.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c398-9GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Child support Children Contracts Contact orders Absent parents Contracts for services Child Support Agency Fees and charges Families ICT Information Maintenance Parents Poverty Parliamentary scrutiny Welfare tax credits Voluntary organisations Separation Children's centres Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission
Legislation
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk