Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 26 February 2009. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Child Support (Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2009.


Child Support (Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2009

My Lords, under the original timetable that we discussed, the new basis for assessment will be introduced in 2010-11, and it will take up to three years for the migration to be completed. We discussed that timescale openly when the legislation went through, and it still holds good. We want to make sure in particular, as we move towards the new system, that the legislation provides a duty and power for the commission to investigate variations, so that when it is possessed of knowledge that flags up that the diversion or deployment of income to reduce maintenance is heading in an unreasonable direction, there is a process whereby it can potentially trigger a claim, so that these provisions can bite. That issue is still less than clear. It is absolutely right to say that historically, the variations route has not been particularly effective for parents with care; not because the calculation is unclear, but because of the process that had to be gone through to establish it. That is something that can and will be fixed by the 2011 scheme. I turn to the question of whether to put on a cap of 50 per cent. When we looked at the basis of assessment for the new calculation, we debated frankly whether to put a cap on pension contributions. What persuaded us to rely instead on the improved variations route, now made more effective by these regulations, was the reliance on gross data from HMRC. That was a significant change in the basis for dealing with child maintenance. It took us away from the problems of the past, when we relied on non-resident parents to declare income. Being able to rely on HMRC data that come automatically through the system is crucial. In relation to occupational pensions, the data come net of the gross payment. That is why we did not look to cap pension contributions; because we would have had to use that data, analyse it in some other way and go back to the problem of not having speedy data on which we could rely.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c419-20 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Child support Children Eligibility Income Maintenance Pensions Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission
Legislation
Child Support (Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2009
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk