I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 3.

Amendment No. 1 concerns the time limit for making a departure application. The amendment deletes subsection (4) of new section 28A of the Child Support Act 1991 inserted by clause 1 and removes the time limit for applications. Applicants would be able to apply for a departure at any time.

I should remind the House of our original purpose in including a time limit for application for a departure direction. Our intention was to reduce as far as possible the period of uncertainty both for the person with care and for" the absent parent while there was still a possibility of a change to the amount of maintenance fixed by the assessment. We wanted to avoid delays in applications, but we always agreed that if there were good cause for a late application, it should be accepted. We felt that it would be unfair to the other party if either the absent parent or the person with care were able, perhaps after a considerable period, to request a departure direction that would affect the amount of maintenance due right back to the date when liability first started.

We accept that it would be unfair to exclude someone from any chance of a departure because he or she had failed to act promptly. We have therefore accepted a compromise solution. The proposal is that an application made later than 28 days from the issue of a maintenance assessment will be accepted even if there is no good cause for the delay. Any direction that results, however, will not be backdated beyond the date of application. We shall achieve that by bringing forward regulations under subsection (4) of new section 28G as introduced by clause 7.

Amendment No. 3 is consequential to No. 1. New section 281, as introduced by clause 9, contains a reference to subsection (4) of new section 28A, which has been removed by amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 3 removes the reference, which is now redundant. The amendments represent a sensible way forward and I commend them to the House.

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in his new duties, especially as his first speech on the Child Support Bill is designed to tell the House that the Government are prepared, in effect, to accept an amendment that I moved in Committee, which would have had the same effect as the Lords amendment. It is pleasing that, as a result of the pressure that has been imposed in another place, the Government have reconsidered their position. In the Minister's explanation, I think that I could hear my very words being spoken in justifying my amendment in Committee. I am pleased that a time limit will not be imposed. I am pleased also that the concession has belatedly been accepted by the Government.

I support the amendment. It is not only fathers, however, who are not paying maintenance.

I have written to the Department about one of my constituents who, because of certain circumstances, allowed her husband to look after her children. After 10 years, her circumstances have changed to the extent that she holds down a good job. At the same time, she looks after the children almost every night. In the evening, however, she takes the children to the father's house. During weekends, she takes the children and looks after them. She works early in the morning in a fruit market and is required to ensure that someone sends her children to school.

It appears to me that the father is only a glorified babysitter and that the mother is facing her duties. The Child Support Agency has ruled that she must pay a substantial proportion of her earnings to the husband. Surely that is extremely unfair. Perhaps the Minister will look into the matter with a view to future amendment of the Biil.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I shall bear in mind. If he writes to me with specific details, I shall consider the matter carefully.

I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position. I am sure that he will fill it with energy and commitment.

I ask the hon. Gentleman seriously to consider departures and time. I have four constituency cases at the Child Support Agency, of which two would have benefited from departures on Saturday. If we are not careful, those who are least able to afford the consequences will be caught, rightly up to a point, by maintenance orders. Those who are able to say that they are self-employed, for example, will avoid having to make payments. In those circumstances, the low-paid in second marriages will be in real trouble if a partner of the first marriage is able to announce that he or she is self-employed. Departures will be extremely important. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when thinking about implementation.

I welcome the Minister to his new post, which I consider to be a poisoned chalice. I also welcome the amendments. I wish that the Government had seen fit to accept more amendments, especially those tabled in another place.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised important points about the workings of the departure system. She will know that we intend to pilot the departure system from next April. We are determined to get the system right, and all points will be carefully taken on board. I hope that the hon. Lady will approve of the piloting system as a means of achieving our goal.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4, 11 and 13.

These are all minor drafting amendments. Lords amendment No. 2 is a minor but necessary drafting repair, which inserts a new subsection into new section 28A, as introduced by clause 1 of the Bill. New schedule 4A of the 1991 Act is inserted by clause 1(2) of the Bill, but no mention of it is made—as it should be-by new section 28A of the 1991 Act, which is inserted in clause 1(1); the amendment rectifies that omission, and I commend it to the House.

5.30 pm

Lords amendment No. 4 resolves a minor technical inconsistency in the wording of clause 19, which occurred when an amendment was made to the clause on Report in the House of Commons. Clause 19 addresses the problem that the making of a deliberately spurious claim for benefit will allow a parent with care to come within the jurisdiction of the Child Support Agency, when in fact she will not be within its jurisdiction because she has a written maintenance agreement made before 5 April 1993 or a court order for maintenance. Subject to certain safeguards, the provision requires the Secretary of State to treat the application for child support maintenance as if it had not been made if he becomes aware that the benefit claim has been withdrawn or disallowed.

As originally drafted, clause 19 referred to "the person with care", but it later referred to the same individual as "the parent with care". The amendment corrects that minor inconsistency by using the phrase "the parent with care" in both instances.

Lords amendment No. 11 is a clarification of an earlier amendment introduced in Committee in the House of Commons. The Bill as originally drafted made provision for regulations made under paragraphs 4 and 5 of schedule 4D of the Bill as originally introduced to be subject to affirmative procedures. However, prompted by an Opposition amendment to reconsider the schedule, we judged that it would be right for all regulations made under it to be approved by both Houses before coming into effect.

It is possible that the amended wording of section 52(2) of the 1991 Act could be interpreted to mean that affirmative procedures apply only to regulations made under part I of schedule 4B, but that was neither the Opposition's intention nor ours. The proposed amendment would put the matter beyond doubt, and I commend it to the House.

Lords amendment No. 13 is a minor technical amendment that rectifies omissions from the 1991 Act, which currently refers only to "part I" and "part III" of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, and does not indicate to which schedule the parts belong. The amendment makes it clear that it is parts I and III of schedule I to the 1975 Act that are amended. The amendment also rectifies a similar omission from the parallel amendment to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, where again the relevant schedule is not indicated. I commend it to the House.

I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the necessity for these drafting amendments, which we have pointed out before—especially in regard to Lords amendment No. 11, which clarifies the affirmative procedure. We have always said that, as Bills now rely so much on regulations, affirmative procedures should be adopted whenever possible, and with clarity.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 6.

Clause 21 provides for the Secretary of State to recover DNA test fees that he has paid in connection with a paternity dispute when the alleged parent either admits paternity or is adjudged to be the father by a court. Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 restrict that power so that, when a court has ordered or requested that the test should be taken, the Secretary of State must apply to the court for the fees to be included in costs awarded to him if he is successful in establishing paternity.

The Government introduced the amendments in another place, because we recognised that it would not be right for officials acting for the Secretary of State to be able to recover DNA test fees when a judge also has discretion to award those fees as part of the court costs. Lords amendment No. 5 acknowledges the important principle that officials should not be able to bypass the courts' discretion to award costs, and I commend it to the House.

We welcome the concession made by the Government. Although the Minister said that they introduced the measure in another place, I think that it relied on an amendment that we tabled in Committee to alter the original Bill. Despite his apparent unwillingness to commend the Opposition's approach, however, we welcome the Government's belated recognition that this is a sensible approach to the recovery of fees.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Clause 23 makes provision for the Secretary of State to reimburse overpaid maintenance in cases where it is not possible or appropriate to deal with the overpayment by means of a reduction in the current maintenance assessment. It was always the intention that overpayments arising in any circumstances should be covered by the provisions; it became clear, however, that the clause as drafted did not cover cases in which an overpayment arose as a result of an invalid assessment.

Invalid assessments can arise in a number of ways. For example, it may be established following a review or appeal that the Child Support Agency has no jurisdiction to make an assessment. Such cases might include those in which the absent parent was not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, there was no qualifying child or there was already a written maintenance agreement made before 5 April 1993. Cases might also arise in which the absent parent accepted paternity at the time the assessment was made, but subsequently disputed it and was found not to be the father.

We do not expect many such cases, but it has always been the intention for them to be included within the provisions of the clause. The amendment agreed to in another place ensures that that policy intention is fulfilled. Without it, absent parents who had overpaid because of invalid assessments might find it difficult to recover those payments. I hope that this House, too, will agree that the amendment is needed.

May I seek clarification of one point? Will the Minister confirm that the amendment deals only with cases in which the CSA itself will refund the overpayment, and not circumstances in which maintenance has been paid to the parent with care and there is an expectation that the parent with care will be responsible for repaying the money to the absent parent? If that is so, we shall be happy to accept the amendment.

I think that I can go a long way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I can confirm that in cases in which an absent parent is reimbursed maintenance overpaid as a result of official error, careful consideration will be given to whether the parent with care should be required to repay that amount. All the facts surrounding the overpayment will be taken into account, and in cases in which it was due wholly to error by the CSA, it is unlikely that the parent with care would be required to repay.

It is, however, right that there should be flexibility to consider all cases. In many instances, for example, a number of different factors may have contributed to the overpayment. We do not therefore believe that it would be appropriate to legislate specifically for official-error repayments.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 14.

Northern Ireland has its own child support scheme, under separate Northern Ireland legislation, paralleling the Great Britain scheme. Therefore, few provisions of the 1991 Act or of the Bill—which will become the Child Support Act 1995—apply to Northern Ireland. Those that do apply need to be listed in what will become subsection (6)(c) of section 30 of the 1995 Act.

Amendment No. 8 is a technical amendment that will enable the provisions in paragraphs 15A, 15B and 15C—inserted by Lords amendment Nos. 12, 13 and 14—to extend to Northern Ireland.

Amendment No. 12 inserts paragraph 15A in schedule 3, which introduces a provision for help with travelling and other expenses for people who are required to attend child support commissioners' oral hearings. Such a provision already exists in social security legislation, but due to oversight, no similar arrangements were made in the Child Support Act 1991. The proposed new paragraph to be added to schedule 4 to the 1991 Act by means of the amendment to schedule 3 to the Bill, will achieve a consistent approach.

Our colleagues in Northern Ireland propose to introduce legislation along those lines for their own purposes in due course. Therefore, the amendment proposes an amendment to paragraph 8 of schedule 4 to the 1991 Act, to prevent provision for travel and other expenses from applying to Northern Ireland. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this is a worthwhile amendment, which rectifies an omission in the 1991 Act. When dealing with amendment No. 13, I explained the effect of the minor drafting amendment in paragraph 15B, which also needs to extend to Northern Ireland.

Amendment No. 14 inserts paragraph 15C in schedule 3, which enables issues arising from the child maintenance bonus scheme to be considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It was never our intention to exclude the child maintenance bonus scheme from the scrutiny of the committee. The amendment makes sure that issues arising from that scheme, which is set up under clause 10 of the Child Support Bill, can be dealt with by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That is achieved by amending the definition of enactments in section 170(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 in relation to which the Social Security Advisory Committee can give advice and assistance, to include section 10 of the 1995 Act. A similar change is made to the definition of the Northern Ireland enactments on which the Social Security Advisory Committee can give advice and assistance, including on any enactment corresponding to section 10 of the 1995 Act.

I commend the amendments to the House.

We welcome the amendments and the fact that travelling expenses will be paid for attendance at oral hearings. That brings such hearings into line with similar hearings under social security legislation. We also welcome the fact that the child maintenance bonus can be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee for its deliberations and comments. I hope that the valued advice that that committee gives to the Minister about the Child Support Agency is accepted more readily than many of the committee's current recommendations on other social security matters.

I refer especially to the withdrawal of income support for mortgage interest payments. The committee was clear that the Government should not proceed with that, but despite that advice and a wealth of other information, the Government pig-headedly went ahead. I hope that in this case, they will listen carefully to the committee's advice. With that caveat, we welcome the amendments.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The amendment gives the Secretary of State power to apply for a liability order to be entered in the register of county court judgments. Hon. Members may be aware that when an absent parent fails to pay maintenance liability and arrears have built up, the Child Support Agency will make every effort to reach an agreement to repay. If the absent parent refuses to reach such an agreement or reneges upon it, enforcement action must be considered.

In the majority of cases, the first stage in that process is likely to be a deduction from earnings order. However, when that fails or when it cannot be imposed—for example, when the absent parent is self-employed—the agency will ask a magistrates court to make a liability order. There is always a hearing before such an order is granted. A liability order can lead to distress action or to a garnishee or charging order. The amendment will allow an alternative course of action—the placing of the order on the register of county court judgments.

An entry in the register can lead to difficulties for an individual if he seeks credit for personal or business purposes. Experience in other areas has shown that, for that reason, the threat of an entry in the register is an incentive to debtors to pay their liabilities, especially if they are self-employed.

As I said, liability orders are needed only in cases where the absent parent has refused to pay his legal liability and will not co-operate on the repayment of arrears. Absent parents have it within their own hands to avoid a liability order and entry in the register. I stress that liability orders will not be entered automatically in the register. The absent parent will be given ample opportunity to change his mind and co-operate with the agency before it takes the step of having the liability order entered in the register of county court judgments.

Even before an application for a liability order is made to the magistrates court, the absent parent will be advised that if the order is granted, the debt may be entered on the register. When the liability order is granted, he will be given a further warning that registration will be considered if arrangements to meet the liability have not been made within a reasonable period. Therefore, the absent parent can easily avoid the consequence of registration by co-operating and meeting his obligations on child maintenance even after a liability order has been obtained.

5.45 pm

It is regrettable that there are some obstructive absent parents who deliberately attempt to delay or avoid their responsibility to their children. It is right for us to do all that we can to ensure that parents with care receive promptly the payments to which they are entitled. Our experience of enforcement to date has been such that we think that the extra power would be useful. We took advice from those who regularly deal with such matters, as the House had wished us to do.

I hope that the House agrees that the amendment provides a further effective means of enforcement in cases where absent parents seek to evade their liabilities. I thank all those who have worked so hard in recent years to make what will be the Child Support Act 1995 more workable. That includes Opposition and Government Members, people outside who work on policy developments and people in the agency. I hope that the amendments and the Bill are evidence that the Government have listened to concerns and that they will give the assurance that the Government will continue to listen to representations about problems related to child support. Over the next couple of years, we hope to see improvements built upon the hard work that has been so patiently done by so many.

No one would deny the Minister an opportunity for a reprise on the Child Support Agency. He is already looking 10 years younger than when he was last at the Dispatch Box. I am grateful for his explanation about the introduction of the liability orders. There is a clear need to be even-handed in our approach to the employed and the self-employed and we must ensure that, where possible, there is co-operation on these matters. I am grateful for the assurance that the liability order will not automatically be placed on the register, because the fact that the matter is now in legislation means that there is more likelihood of the self-employed person making his maintenance payments. In that context, we support the amendment.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

A parent with care who receives or whose partner receives a relevant benefit must give her authority for child maintenance to be sought from the absent parent if she is required to do so by the Secretary of State. If she refuses to give her authority without good cause, section 46 of the Child Support Act 1991 provides that her benefit may be reduced.

The amendment was tabled in another place in response to an Opposition amendment. It would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe the circumstances in which the benefit reduction should not apply, thus adding flexibility to the provisions relating to reduced benefit deductions, which already allow for a direction to be suspended.

We listened to what was said in another place and are persuaded that where a parent with care or any child living with her is disabled, the benefit reduction may cause particular hardship. Therefore, we intend to introduce regulations as soon as practicable to exempt parents in such circumstances from the reduced benefit direction. The Government have also undertaken to introduce regulations at the same time, to suspend the reduced benefit direction in cases where the parent with care has deductions made from her income support—for example, to repay fuel debts or rent arrears. The benefit reduction is intended to make the parent with care think carefully about her decision not to co-operate, and the Government think that that is right. The amendment will mean that in specific circumstances, where the reduction could cause particular hardship, the reduced benefit direction will not be imposed. I invite hon. Members to accept the amendment.

I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the amendment. Clearly, however, we shall need to see the precise wording of the regulations to be able to determine how they will work in practice and who will be covered by them. Yet again, as we said on several occasions in Committee, we need to see and debate the details of the regulations before we can be certain that they cover the points raised not only in the other place, but in Committee.

We are pleased that the Bill is about to complete its passage. We were supportive in the way in which we tabled amendments to the Bill, particularly in terms of the departure direction, and we have facilitated its progress. However, we are still extremely disappointed that the Government have not yet agreed to another fundamental change—introducing a proper child care disregard to make the legislation truly put children first, by making an additional amount available to the parent with care who so desperately needs the money, rather than having all the money absorbed by the Treasury.

There is continuing concern, as shown in the evidence that is being compiled, about the operation of the agency. Recent evidence to the Public Accounts Committee was extremely disturbing in terms of what it showed about the amount being collected and the amount passing from the absent parent to the parent with care.

The Labour party will continue vigorously to monitor the operation of the Act, to ensure that the further amendments that will be required to ensure equity and fairness in the system are brought forward at the earliest opportunity. Although we have facilitated the passage of the Bill, that does not mean that we are satisfied with the operation of the agency or that we are satisfied that the legislation covers all the aspects necessary to ensure that the principle we support—that all parents should take responsibility for the upbringing of their children—is properly defined within legislation.

We shall continue to monitor and look carefully at all aspects of the Act, including the way in which it is administered through the agency, to ensure that there is even-handedness and fairness between the parent with care and the absent parent. We also need to ensure at the end of the day that the real beneficiaries of child support legislation are the children who so desperately need the income to maintain a proper living standard and that the parents caring for them, especially those on income support, are not kept in poverty because of the Government's failure to recognise a proper child care disregard.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Bill. I am sorry that we were unable to persuade him of the superior benefits of the child maintenance bonus. I have, however, heard what he has said—indeed, I heard it throughout the Committee stage when I was the Government Whip responsible for the Bill. I am, therefore, very familiar with his arguments.

The hon. Gentleman emphasises the importance of the administration of the agency getting better and rendering the service to the parent with care, the absent parent and the taxpayer that we all expect. That is a point that is well made and an aspiration with which hon. Members on both sides will agree.