Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 February 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.


Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for giving me the opportunity to explain why Clause 12 is drafted as it is. The amendment would alter the transfer of functions under Clause 12, so that the commission becomes responsible for Section 46 of the Child Support Act 1991, and that functions under Section 6 would remain with the Secretary of State. I shall seek to explain how this is the wrong way round. Section 46 of the 1991 Act provides that, if a parent with care in receipt of a prescribed benefit chooses to opt out of the statutory scheme without good cause, the Secretary of State may apply a reduced benefit decision, reducing the amount of benefit that the parent with care receives. Given that this relates entirely to decisions on the amount of benefit a person is to receive, and not to child support, it is right that the function should remain solely with the Secretary of State. Section 6, however, does relate to child support. It provides that a parent with care receiving prescribed benefits is automatically treated as having made an application for a maintenance calculation. As it falls to the Child Support Agency to handle such an application, this is a function which should be transferred to the commission. The transfer is achieved through Clause 12(1), and Schedule 3 makes the relevant modifications to the wording of the 1991 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, identified why functions under Sections 6 and 46 need be considered at all, when they are to be repealed under Clause 15. In fact, the repeal of Sections 6 and 46 may not be effected until shortly after the launch of the commission and there would be a short intervening period during which it is important that responsibility for these functions falls to the appropriate body. As it stands, therefore, Clause 12 simply ensures that responsibility for carrying out functions under Sections 6 and 46 falls to the appropriate authority before these sections are repealed. On our estimate on timing, assuming Royal Assent is as we would all want, it is currently anticipated that we are looking at July for dealing with the Section 6 compulsion for the flow on to the case load, but October for the start. The earlier date would be for the on-flow, as there is no point in insisting that people come in if within a few weeks they have the choice to stay out of the system. I hope that that has dealt clearly with the noble Lord’s inquiry and he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c502-3GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Child support Children Cooperation Arrears Child Support Agency Custody Liability Income Maintenance Parents Payments Overseas residence Self-employed Revenue and Customs 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