---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

The amendments in this group, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, again suggest some caution in regard to the abolition of Sections 6 and 46 of the Child Support Act 1991. They make that requirement to co-operate stated in the 1991 Act conditional on the introduction of a full maintenance disregard for child maintenance payments with income support and jobseeker’s allowance. If I had any in this room, my noble friends would be rather surprised that I added my name to these amendments, because they are not yet my party’s policy. I put my name to them to point out an anomaly, as I see it and to which I have referred in earlier debates, in the benefits system. Child maintenance payments are wholly disregarded for tax credit purposes. These amendments would allow the same complete disregard for poorer parents with care; that is, those on the benefits I have just stated. Does the Minister have any idea how much this would cost? The proposed maximum disregard of £20 from 2008, rising to £40 in 2010, would make it unlikely, where the parent with care is on benefit, that the non-resident parent would choose to pay any more than this amount even if he could afford it. Here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. Private maintenance arrangements would not result in any more than the disregard. There will therefore inevitably be wide money differences between the statutory and the non-statutory schemes. I recognise that a full maintenance disregard would provide the largest incentive to parents with care to seek maintenance and non-resident parents to pay what they can afford, and would increase the numbers of children taken out of poverty. That is, if it is affordable, and it may or may not be a big ““if””. I shall await the Minister’s answer on that with eagerness. I would also think that the Government would find these amendments appealing, given that the application of this disregard would mean significant administrative benefits to CMEC and to Jobcentre Plus. I support the thrust to get a debate going on this, although I did not support the detail.