---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

The amendments in this group provide a helpful opportunity to discuss issues around the annual report and Clause 9. This is a standard clause in the founding legislation of non-departmental public bodies and places a number of specific reporting requirements on the commission. Subject to the passage of the Bill, the commission will come into being later in 2008. It is our intention that the first annual report will cover the period from the commencement of the commission to the end of the financial year and then each complete financial year thereafter. That would bring the reporting cycle into line with that of other NDPBs and, indeed, other corporate bodies. Furthermore, it keeps the annual report in line with the period that will be covered by the annual accounts, which must cover financial years. Amendment No. 58 requires that these two key reports cover different periods and would run against Treasury guidelines. Perhaps more importantly, it would hinder the ability of stakeholders, particularly Parliament, to scrutinise the commission and monitor the efficiency and effectiveness with which it is performing its functions. That brings me to Amendment No. 59, which I think is intended to probe the meaning behind Clause 9(3)(c). Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 3 places a statutory requirement on the commission to exercise its functions effectively and efficiently. As such, we have provided through subsection 3(c) of Clause 9 that the commission must report on the steps taken to monitor its performance in that respect. Amendment No. 59 removes that requirement, but I hope to convince noble Lords of its importance. While reporting on objectives and targets, as required by subsection 3(b), is very much about what the commission has achieved, this subsection of the clause requires the commission to report on how it has been working. It requires that the commission details the steps it is taking to monitor how it is exercising its functions, specifically how it is assuring itself that it is doing so in a way that is both effective and efficient; in other words, to prove that it is providing value for money for the taxpayer. In light of that, I believe that this amendment would remove a requirement from the annual report that is important for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the commission. Amendment No. 60 inserts a requirement to report on the details of any complaints received and how they were dealt with. I fully understand the reasoning behind this amendment. However, in subsection 3(c) the Bill already places a requirement upon the commission to report the steps taken to monitor its performance in ensuring that all its functions are exercised effectively and efficiently. As with all public bodies, customer service is important and that includes complaints handling. We have every intention that the commission will report its performance against any complaints targets set within the annual report, much as the Child Support Agency does now. We do not feel that that requires specific legislation. It is also our intention that the commission will take into account any of the recommendations made by the independent case examiner who will continue to produce an annual report on complaints received in the area of child support. There is also a requirement under Schedule 7 to the Bill for the commission to report on the standards achieved by the commission in decisions that can be appealed to an appeal tribunal. There is also a separate requirement for the president of the appeal tribunals to report on the standards of decision-making based on the cases that have come before appeal tribunals. Amendment No. 62 raises the important issue of contracting out and inserts a requirement into the Bill to report on the extent to which organisations operating under contract to the commission are achieving their objectives. It is entirely proper that Parliament should be given the opportunity to scrutinise not only the extent to which the commission has contracted out functions, but also how effectively those functions are being performed. This is already provided for through Clause 9. Subsection (2) makes it clear that the commission must report on all its activities, including any activities contracted out. Subsection (3) then adds specific requirements. For example, subsection 3(b) requires the commission to report on the steps taken to meet its objectives and the progress made. Again, that must include the functions delivered by contractors. This amendment goes beyond that and requires a specific report on the performance of each individual contractor. We are concerned that such a specific requirement could present difficulties, perhaps impinging on commercial confidentiality. For example, if potential contractors can see how existing contractors have performed, it would put the commission at a disadvantage in future contracting exercises. It is the commission’s responsibility to deliver its functions efficiently and effectively regardless of how they are delivered. Clause 9 places comprehensive reporting requirements on the commission that, as I have made clear, will cover functions delivered by contractors and will therefore enable Parliament to hold the commission to account for its responsibilities. I can understand the noble Lord’s reasons for tabling Amendment No. 63. It places a specific requirement on the commission to report on the steps taken to recover outstanding debt and to detail its level of success in this area. We consider the collection of existing debt to be an extremely important function and we have provided for increased enforcement powers within the Bill to assist in the collection of debt. However, we consider that this amendment is unnecessary. The existing provisions of Clause 9 require the commission to report on all its activities and also on progress towards its objectives. So not only must the commission report on the effectiveness of debt collection as an activity, it must also report on its objective to secure compliance with parental obligations; in other words it must report on how it is getting all parents to pay all that is owing. The amendment also places a specific requirement on the commission to report on the measures used to assess progress towards objectives. As I have just mentioned, there is already a requirement to report on the steps taken to meet objectives and targets and the extent to which they have been met. In meeting this reporting requirement, the commission must adopt and explain a measure of performance for each objective. As such, the amendment would only serve to duplicate an existing requirement. Amendment No. 64 provides the opportunity to explain how the commission will publish its annual report. In accordance with Treasury best practice, the report will be laid in Parliament by the Secretary of State at the same time as the annual accounts. We would then expect the annual report to be made available on both the departmental website and the commission’s internet site. As is usual, we would also expect hard copies to be produced and distributed to the commission’s stakeholders and made available to the public on request. This is the approach that is currently taken by the Child Support Agency. The amendment would remove the obligation on the commission to publish the report, and I am aware that this is not what the noble Lord intended. Staying with publication, Amendment No. 65 places a requirement that the annual report should be laid in Parliament by the Secretary of State within one month of receiving it from the commission. Current Treasury guidance would mean that the commission’s annual report would need to be laid in Parliament together with the annual accounts. There is currently no timeframe for when the annual report should, as such, be produced. The annual accounts, however, are required through provisions in the Bill to be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination by the end of the August following the financial year that the accounts relate to. That is the key reassurance that I think the noble Lord is seeking, that there is a timeframe attached. Under the procedure as set out in the Bill, it is unnecessary to provide a timeframe for the Secretary of State, who has no role in approving the report. Both the annual report and the accounts will be laid as soon as possible following the certification of the annual accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Finally, Amendment No. 61 would require the commission to report on the extent to which it has relied on the provision for agency arrangements, effectively bringing it into parallel with the provision for contracting out. Noble Lords may be aware that Sir David Henshaw’s report placed an emphasis on the contracting out of functions. As such, we felt it appropriate to provide an explicit requirement on the commission to report on the extent to which it has contracted out any services. In contrast to Clause 8(1), the provision in Clause 7(1) enables the commission to enter into arrangements with other public bodies and departments, which enables a variety of joint working across government. Clause 7(1) will allow for the continued arrangements with Northern Ireland. Consequently, we do not see the merit in placing an explicit provision for the commission to report on these arrangements. However, just as the CSA currently reports on any arrangements that it has with any relevant authorities; it is likely that the commission would report on any arrangements made under Clause 7(1) when reporting on its activities in the previous financial year. In light of the above, I urge noble Lords to withdraw the amendment. However, in recognition that the inclusion of Clause 7(1) alongside Clause 8(1) would add symmetry to the reporting provisions, I am prepared to take that away to consider it further, and I will possibly come back to this issue at Report stage. I hope that shows noble Lords that we are willing to consider and act on appropriate suggestions and that we are a listening government.