moved Amendment No. 1:

My Lords, should this amendment be agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 inclusive owing to pre-emption.

My Lords, it is very useful to start the Report stage with these amendments. I shall speak only briefly because, as my noble friend will know, I have real reservations about the degree of voluntarism proposed in the Bill and the psychologically flawed view that if you do not pay under a statutory scheme you will somehow pay under a voluntary scheme which by definition becomes discretionary, optional and, in the worst possible case, avoided. The amendments deal with the issue of the commission being encouraged by statute to tilt what should be, at best, a level playing field up towards a voluntary system, with a statutory system only as a default. The amendments would change the position and give equal strength and support to both systems.

We could, equally, do it in a different way. Why cannot we have identical wording in subsection (2)(a) and (b) “to encourage and support the making and keeping by parents” and “to encourage and support the making of applications”? Both paragraphs would read either “encourage and support” or simply “support”, but at least on the face of the Bill they will not push the commission into a position that is full of risk, as I shall show when we come on to the more substantial debate about the repeal of Section 6. The potential losers will be children. It will be win-win for everyone else except the kids.

Is there any reason why the Government should not come back at Third Reading with an amendment to subsection (2)(b) which reads,

“to encourage and support the making”,

so that there is no tilt either way, in one direction or the other?

My Lords, I understand the point the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, makes about a tilt in one direction or another, but I want to start my few words on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, by saying that it is not my practice to come into your Lordships’ House as the announcement of a Bill is made from the Woolsack. I had anticipated—indeed, I was not told any different, although I asked—that an hour for dinner-hour business would be the norm and therefore we would follow that procedure today. Clearly we have not; I was here just in time to hear the noble Lord’s opening remarks, and I am glad of that.

I rather expected that the noble Lord would table Amendment No. 1 so that we could have a fairly extensive debate on the objectives of the commission. He rambled rather wider than that, I have to tell him, but I excuse him for that and I hope the Minister will too. I am not sure that it was entirely necessary, but the noble Lord himself has deemed it so. We are therefore retreading an extensive debate that we had at the opening of Committee.

Given that the noble Lord has allowed these two amendments to be grouped, we ought to take them together. He is proposing to leave Clause 2(1) alone as it stands but to remove the whole of Clause 2(2) and replace it with the words, “to encourage, in particular” and so on, as on the Marshalled List. That would mean that the other two objectives would disappear. The Minister cannot want that.

Regarding Amendment No. 2, we all agree that the child support system is still in a mess, even though I accept, like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that the operational improvement plan has made it less so in the past few months. None the less, it is your Lordships’ duty to see that the Bill sorts out the problem. I question whether the amendment offers anything better than what is already proposed. I did not read out the whole of the amendment, nor will I do so now, but irrespective of what we mean by “maintenance”, which is the subject of the next group of amendments, surely the noble Lord’s proposal does very little that is new. Both amendments seek to ensure that more children will benefit from child maintenance payments. We all support that; it is the whole objective, first, of the CSA and, secondly, of the Bill and CMEC’s activities. Why it needs to be said twice is, I am afraid, beyond me. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain.

It is the details that I object to. By seeking to turn the clock back to the making of applications for child support maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991, the amendment would hinder the new CMEC from emerging successfully from the mess I have described. The old CSA did not work because it forced the PWC to use the statutory maintenance system. The new CMEC is a response to that, in which the voluntary system is a viable alternative. I am sure that the noble Baroness the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, rather; I am sorry, I am slightly out of date sometimes—is right in saying that the voluntary system could be significantly improved, but it is a major feature of the Bill. I agree with her that the Bill should therefore show no particular prejudice to either system, which the amendment does—there is no shadow of doubt about that.

The statutory system is always open to parents regardless of whether they are in receipt of the jobseeker’s allowance. I am sure the Minister will agree that Amendment No. 2 is potentially harmful to the worthy objectives of the Bill.

My Lords, I agree with noble Lords that our deliberations start in a good place by focusing on how this legislation can be relevant to the most vulnerable. As to the lateness of the hour at which we are considering our business, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, will be aware that I have no influence over the powers that be, but I agree with him that it is right that we should take the time that we need on Report. We had a good Committee stage and should not skimp on time if that is what noble Lords think is necessary.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for our rather hurried start. I, too, had anticipated that we would have the full hour of the dinner break before the business was called. I should perhaps have intervened at that stage. I apologise to the noble Lord and was pleased to see him in his place to be able fully to participate.

Before I discuss the detail of the amendments, perhaps I may respond to one or two of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, raised. Substantial progress has been made on the OIP. We could go through the detail of the statistics, but he will be as aware of them as I am. I highlight that, in the period to March 2008, in excess of £1 billion was collected. That is a significant sum and in excess of the target of £970 million. I agree that there is a way to go in terms of maintenance outcomes, but the outcome of 67 per cent was again in excess of the target for that period. Progress is being made.

The noble Lord referred to the build-up of debt. The latest internal CSA figures show that arrears grew by around £10 million per month during 2007-08, which is down from £16 million a month in the previous year and £23 million a month in the year before that. That is another indication of real progress.

The noble Lord quite rightly referred to IT upgrades, as he did in Committee. Another readiness assessment will take place shortly, but the agency is determined to learn from the mistakes of the past and is making sure that it undertakes the additional round of testing necessary to ensure that PR1 is fully effective when it is implemented. Changes proposed in the Bill will not be impacted by any delay to PR1.

The noble Lord referred to the costs of the Ventura contract. The figure of £23 million is indicative and does not represent the final value of the contract. That will be known when the contract is signed. In the mean time, we are working with the supplier to prototype and build the service.

The noble Lord referred also to clerical cases. The increase in the clerical case load is not evidence of any new failure in the IT system but a consequence of the agency’s success in reducing uncleared cases, which masks the number of cases needing clerical process. It is worth noting that 37,000 cases is less than 3 per cent of the total.

Amendment No. 1 would remove the commission’s two subsidiary objectives, leaving it with the single objective of maximising the number of effective maintenance arrangements in place for children who live apart from one or both parents. Amendment No. 2 would add a third subsidiary objective to Clause 2, which would require the commission to encourage parents with care in receipt of income support or jobseeker’s allowance to apply to the statutory maintenance service. The underlining rationale of both amendments is the same and I know is favoured by One Parent Families/Gingerbread, which has discussed it with the DWP.

Both amendments address the concern that, in meeting its duty to “encourage and support” appropriate voluntary arrangements, the commission will fail to support such parents for whom a voluntary arrangement may not be appropriate and thus risk their entirely dropping out of the child maintenance system. It is argued that such a bias would disadvantage those parents with care who are not well equipped with information and knowledge to secure a fair voluntary arrangement for their children or who are at risk of intimidation. To address this concern, Amendment No. 1 would place voluntary and statutory arrangements on an equal footing in statute. This is to ensure, for example, that future boards that have not been involved in drawing up the legislation are none the less clear about their obligations with respect to both types of arrangements, rather than systemically favouring voluntary over statutory arrangements.

Amendment No. 2 would address this concern by adding a third subsidiary objective, which would specifically require the commission to encourage parents with care in receipt of income support or jobseeker’s allowance to apply to the statutory maintenance service. Both amendments are eminently well intentioned, but I hope that I can persuade noble Lords—I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is persuaded already—that neither is necessary.

It is true that the Government favour voluntary arrangements when these are appropriate, in both level and type of maintenance. Research shows that such arrangements are the most durable and are associated with higher compliance rates, which is also because they can be tailored to the individual circumstances of both the parents in question. The first subsidiary objective, therefore, requires the commission to encourage and support both parents to make an arrangement that they, not the commission, judge is in the best interests of their child and that is most appropriate to both parents in respect of the level and terms of the arrangement. An appropriate voluntary arrangement must therefore be suitable to the needs of both parents and would, of course, be negotiated in the shadow of the statutory service, the services of which should be widely known and highly functioning to both parents.

There no question of the commission pressuring parents, either explicitly or implicitly, to trial or to attempt a voluntary arrangement before an application is made to the statutory service. The information and support services provided by the commission will support parents to make an effective arrangement. This means that the commission will explain and support the statutory service to parents as part of an overall discussion of their options. Furthermore, placing a requirement on the commission to encourage appropriate voluntary arrangements does not in any way diminish the commission’s duty to support applications to the statutory service.

The second subsidiary objective already requires the commission to support applications to the statutory service. This, incidentally, is one of the main reasons why we do not believe that a third subsidiary objective is necessary. I shall come back to the other reasons shortly. The statutory service is already to be the preferred route when there are imbalances of power between the parents in negotiation—for example, when the parent with care has no knowledge of the non-resident parent’s income, or when there is a history of intimidation in the relationship. However, the statutory service is important as an element in the mix for all separating parents, since, as I said, it provides them with the benchmark on which to base their decisions on child maintenance. As I made clear, support for applications to the statutory service is not to be the default position only when voluntary arrangements cannot be made to work. Rather, statutory arrangements will be the preferred route from the outset for many parents in many circumstances, including those that I have just set out.

My Lords, is the Minister saying that in practice there will be a level playing field because each lone parent, before they make the decision on which route to go—voluntary or statutory—will have not only initiated but received contact from the information and advice service, so that the choice of which route they go down will be an informed one, on the basis of the advice being given by the Government? If so, given that so much of this could be voluntary, how will the Government know how to get hold of these parents?

My Lords, the support and information service cannot guarantee to be in touch with every separating parent. As we discussed in Committee, there will be specific arrangements for parents with care on benefit who come into the system and stay in the system to be encouraged to use the information and support service. If they do not take up that opportunity, there will be a direct approach from the service to those individuals. Those opportunities will arise for those on jobseeker’s allowance, for example, because not only will an individual make an application but there is ongoing contact under the arrangements for the receipt of that benefit, driven through conditionality. Even in relation to people on income support, the claim is refreshed from time to time, generally no less than on an annual basis, so there will be opportunities for those individuals to be specifically targeted by the information and support service. Beyond that, the information and support service will be engaged in a wide range of activities in putting information on the website and in leaflets and in working with arrangements that DCSF is generating to support parents more generally. There will be a whole raft of opportunities.

It is absolutely right that parents with care and non-resident parents should be aware of what the statutory system provides. In due course, they need to be aware that it is effective in delivering as well. I do not diminish the challenges that the service faces, but I believe that there is a robust approach to making sure that the people about whom we are all concerned can genuinely be reached.

More detailed guidance for the commission on its operational parameters will come through non-statutory arrangements, such as the framework document, which is the foundation for relationships between NDPBs and their sponsoring departments, and the commission’s business plan, which the department must approve.

On a more technical drafting note, I can advise the noble Lord that the deletion of the second subsidiary objective would result in the removal of any reference to the requirement to pursue accrued debt in the objectives, a matter that has been of particular concern in your Lordships’ House, certainly in Committee. While removing this reference would not remove the commission’s statutory obligations to secure compliance under the Child Support Act 1991, it would reduce the visibility of this requirement in the primary legislation. To that extent, it would be unhelpful.

Amendment No. 2 would add a third subsidiary objective. As I have outlined, we do not believe that that is necessary, as there is already provision requiring the commission to support statutory applications in Clause 2(2)(b). Furthermore, we do not believe that reintroducing an automatic link between the statutory service and social security benefits should form part of the new child maintenance system’s objectives. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was also clear on that.

We recognise that the customers of HMRC and Jobcentre Plus will be an important client group of the statutory service. As I discussed in Grand Committee, the shadow body is working closely with Jobcentre Plus and HMRC to ensure that newly separated parents on both benefits and tax credits can be identified and referred across to the information and support service.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I say to my noble friend that her question has been dealt with. I reiterate that our preference is to have voluntary arrangements where appropriate because we believe that that will be the most effective way of sustaining maintenance arrangements. However, there will be a clear obligation to support applications to the statutory system where that is not the case. It would be difficult logically to have phraseology that encouraged two, in a sense, mutually exclusive circumstances. I believe that we have the right balance. This is about a level playing field; it is not about saying that, where it is not appropriate for people to have voluntary arrangements, they will not be supported into the statutory system.

My Lords, I am reassured to some extent by my noble friend’s helpful remarks. Would he be able to go further, perhaps at Third Reading, and insert in Clause 2(2) after the words,

“supported by the following subsidiary objectives”,

such words as, “following information and advice to encourage and support”? That would lock in the information and advice service before a decision is made and would be, I think, consistent with his position.

My Lords, I am not sure that it would be helpful to put something that specific in the Bill. There is a requirement to operate the information and support service. The commission will have to achieve and report on a whole raft of targets. However, we need to be careful about prescribing precisely how the information and support service will operate before it is established. It is absolutely key that it is a robust service and that it does its job, particularly as regards the most vulnerable parents. It will be tested on that. The annual reporting that is provided for in this legislation will clearly be one route by which we will all be able to judge whether the outcomes that we want are being achieved. If they are not, there is scope to change emphasis and to change resource if necessary. I hope that that has dealt with my noble friend’s query. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, looks as though he wishes to intervene.

My Lords, if I were to be allowed to précis the noble Lord’s argument, is he saying that the Bill shows no particular prejudice towards either system? That is extremely important.

My Lords, to be clear, there is an overriding obligation to maximise the number of effective child maintenance arrangements in place. That is the anchor of this legislation. We have argued that we believe that voluntary arrangements, where they are appropriate, are the best arrangements for people to enter into because research shows that they are more sustainable and can be more flexible. Indeed, inherent in them is the concept that the two parents will engage and there will be a dialogue. That is part of a wider backdrop that we should welcome. We want to encourage voluntary arrangements where they are appropriate. Where they are not appropriate, we want to help and support people into the statutory system. That is the thrust of this legislation. I had hoped that it was understood that that was the basis on which we had argued for this to date.

My Lords, I do not want to pursue this because we are not in Committee, but it would have been very much easier if the Minister, rather than wrapping up his answer in so many words, had said either yes or no. But I leave the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood.

My Lords, I conclude not by saying yes or no but by asking the noble Lord whether he is prepared to withdraw the amendment in the light of the discussion that we have had.

My Lords, I am encouraged by the discussion, but the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is important. One thinks of established Section 6 cases, but new ones will arise. The point that she makes is absolutely crucial. How will the Minister’s heirs and successors, and the people who run CMEC, get to know and understand the full circumstances of some of these people in future? Perhaps he will reflect on that between now and Third Reading. I may be missing something—

My Lords, there will be clear routes by which the information and support service can be engaged to make contact with people accessing the benefits system or to encourage them to make contact with it. That contact is not only a once in a lifetime contact when somebody goes on benefit. As the noble Lord will be aware, if the benefit is jobseeker’s allowance, there is ongoing engagement and interviews. That is part of the structure of that benefit. There is generally less engagement for income support claimants, but there is still a process whereby the claim is refreshed. There is a process of ongoing contact by Jobcentre Plus with benefit recipients and by HMRC with claimants for tax credits.

There is no easy or ready way for the information and support service to reach people who are not on benefits or claiming tax credits. That is no different from the current arrangements. At least under the new arrangements, with the obligation for there to be an information and support service, there will be much broader arrangements. I refer to all the good work that is going on between the DWP and the redesigned team working with the Department for Children, Schools and Families to build this broader network of support for families. One could build this network and infrastructure through children’s centres so that, when parents come into contact with other parents, other government agencies and local authorities, they can access information about child maintenance. That is a real advance on the current arrangements, as it is a route for reaching people who are not on benefit.

My Lords, the Minister is doing his best and I think that he has made some progress. There is less ground between us than when we started, which is progress. I will study the debate in Hansard. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 3:

My Lords, I welcome this group amendments and I have put my name to most of them. They all prompt further discussion as to the definition of child maintenance. This is in part because it was not until we started in Committee to consider the concept of maintenance that our discussion became animated for the first time. I have no doubt that even with so few noble Lords in the Chamber at this late hour this issue could have that effect for a second time. Moreover and more importantly, I was very disappointed by the Minister’s response in Committee that the emotional part of child maintenance is,

“specifically, directly and deliberately”—

I repeat, deliberately—

“not part of the Bill”.—[Official Report, 31/1/08; col. GC 412.]

I agree with Amendment No. 3 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and Amendment No. 5 to which she spoke. They are very sensible. As I will discuss more extensively on my Amendment No. 6, I do not believe that child maintenance is or should be just financial. Furthermore, financial commitment to a child is a consequence of emotional commitment. Not to put too fine a point on it, if the parent believes they have a duty towards their child, then they are more likely than not to be financially committed to that child. We live in a society in which one-in-three separated families receive no child maintenance. This is a situation that needs to be reversed for the sake of child welfare. As I shall say tomorrow during the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, reversing that situation will help to reduce child poverty.

It is an important duty of the Government to protect the citizens of the country. If parents are made fully aware of the great responsibilities that having a child entails, then maybe the number of parents who maintain their children will be improved. This amendment recognises that CMEC will be in the perfect position to fulfil such a task, becoming, as it will, an interface between parental and state intervention through the activities of Ventura. Such proactive work will decrease the amount of cases that come through CMEC and free up some of its precious resources. We must never forget the old adage that prevention is very much better than cure.

I am afraid that Amendment No. 4 does not quite muster the same level of support from me. Development and welfare are important, but I fail to see—and I suspect that the Minister will fail to see—what “health” has to do with this Bill. We would all be delighted if CMEC could be a body with miraculous “Jim’ll Fix It” powers, but it cannot. Further, it is even less likely to achieve what the Bill proposes if its remit is widened to the impossible. The child’s health, although arguably indirectly linked to his maintenance, cannot be considered within this Bill and must not be made an obligation of the commission.

I spoke to my amendment so that I could talk a little longer about what I believe to be the very character, or characteristic, of maintenance—a subject which essentially defines the Bill. There is an important fact that we must not ignore: maintenance is more than money. I am glad to see through their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, see maintenance in the same way as I do.

While securing appropriate payments is an essential element in supporting a child’s development—and I would not disagree with what the Minister said on that in Grand Committee—it is most certainly not the only one. It is impossible to reduce the filial relationship merely to pounds and pennies. With children there is a profoundly important relationship, different than that of a fund manager—which, in a sense, is how CMEC could be described—that must be maintained and encouraged. For a child to have a happy, successful upbringing, parents must be committed to providing emotional support, time and, above all, love. Helping with schoolwork can be as important as paying school fees—even though there are not supposed to be any within the state system; and there are, of course.

I am not quite so naïve as to suggest that it should be CMEC’s duty to make this ideal a reality—although it would be wonderful if it could. But I believe that CMEC should have more than just the financial role that its predecessor the CSA had. The CSA was notoriously unpopular and resented for its intrusion into parents’ lives because it was deemed little more than a money-extracting body, hounding those of limited means. For CMEC to succeed, I believe it is essential that it has a very different image from the one that preceded it. If parents transfer their hostility towards the CSA on to the new CMEC, then however many improvements the Bill may propose, they will, alas, not be completely fulfilled.

My Lords, I agree with some of the sentiments behind the amendments but I do not think that this is an appropriate Bill for introducing them. Something of a regular theme of mine is encouraging various departments to speak to each other and encouraging the various bits of government to join up. As is often the case, the sentiments that are expressed in relation to one part of legislation are probably best carried out elsewhere.

We probably all agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. The arguments about a nanny state and so on loom large, and people fall on different sides of the argument on different occasions, but I suggest that this is the wrong Bill and the wrong vehicle for this type of support. Here, we are telling people that they should put their hand in their pocket when they have not done so in the past, and we are promoting a greater awareness of responsibility in parenting, but I suggest that this is the wrong place to start. However, I think it is right that we get an idea of how the other services tie in together. If we are not creating the right vehicle here, how do the rest of the issues tie in? This may be an appropriate point for the Minister to give us an idea of how other services are being brought in to help in these objectives.

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for these amendments, which, again, give us an opportunity to discuss a very important issue. As we have heard, the underlying purpose of Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 appears to be to extend the remit of the commission from a body focused on securing effective child maintenance arrangements to one that also promotes the full responsibilities of parenthood. That includes matters relating to health development and welfare and the promotion of “parental care”.

I sympathise with noble Lords’ intentions. I know—this was cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has raised these issues with my noble friend Lord Adonis, particularly in the context of the Children and Young Persons Bill. I also understand the noble Lord’s desire to discuss more broadly the Government’s role in promoting parental responsibility—in particular, whether legislation would be the best route to communicate with parents who are uncertain of their parenting responsibilities.

As my noble friend Lord Adonis made clear in that debate, the Government fully recognise the need to respond to parents who fail to take seriously their parental responsibilities. We fully accept that some parents need advice and assistance, and the Government are steadily improving the quantity and quality of the services that are available. However—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington—I do not believe that this Bill or this commission is the right home for these provisions as there is a real risk that they will dilute the effort of the commission from its primary purpose of promoting child maintenance and, in particular, ensuring that parents take financial responsibility for the maintenance of their children.

It is for the same reason that I cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, which would restrict the commission’s ability to promote to parents their responsibility for providing child maintenance. This would limit the commission’s options for maximising the number of effective child maintenance arrangements that are in place. I am sure that this is not what the noble Lord intended, given the importance of this in combating child poverty.

Although I must disappoint noble Lords on the specifics of their amendments, I can perhaps provide some solace by recognising that we see a clear link between parental responsibility with regard to child maintenance and in its broader sense. In addition, I stress that the commission will clearly need to be understanding of, and sensitive to, the emotional environment that separated parents face. This will inevitably be part of the context in which it will operate and the prospect of maximising the number of effective maintenance arrangements will undoubtedly be increased if the relationship between separating parents is conducive to discussion, engagement and negotiation. I know that the Centre for Separated Families has been engaged in helping to train staff in delivering the information and support service for this very reason.

It will be in the interests of the commission and its objectives to have some understanding of this wider context, but I would expect the commission to encourage such engagement anyway as part of a cross-government approach to supporting parents. We will encourage the commission to work alongside other organisations dealing with similar issues. We provide for that in the Bill. Clause 7 gives the commission power to enter into arrangements with other agencies and Clause 5 places a requirement on the commission to provide parents with the necessary information and guidance to secure an effective child maintenance arrangement.

We would see that as including referring and signposting them on to other organisations that can help on issues related to separation, family breakdown and parental responsibility. This is not the limit of our ambitions, but the lesson of past reforms to the child support system is that we should walk before we can run. I would also point out that the development of the information and support service, which we have discussed at some length in Grand Committee, demonstrates how we are already working closely with other government departments and bodies, particularly the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which have the cross-government policy lead on family policy issues. We intend the commission to engage fully in cross-government work on services for parents and children and I am pleased to say that the chair-designate of the commission, in particular, is already having an enormous influence in shaping developments in this area.

Perhaps I can say more about supporting vulnerable parents. We have always fully recognised the importance of that, particularly those whose children are at most risk of poverty. From the outset, this awareness has underpinned key parts of the legislation and reform system that we are putting in place. The information and support service is the primary component of the new system to protect parents on low incomes. We are putting arrangements in place with Jobcentre Plus and HMRC to ensure that as many parents as possible claim and renew their benefits and tax credits and are proactively guided towards the information and support service.

Secondly, we are establishing a large-scale, high quality national helpline service—in certain circumstances, a face-to-face service—so that parents can get helpful information on the different options for child maintenance. Thirdly, those services will support both parental decision-making and parents acting on the decisions that they make—for example, by transferring them across to the CSA, sending out a standard voluntary maintenance form to help them record and maintain the arrangement, and helping parents understand what level of maintenance they could be entitled to through the CSA. Fourthly, many parents will need the statutory service, which is why we are focusing on further improvement to the operational efficiency of the statutory scheme and increasing the powers available to CMEC against those parents who refuse to pay.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pressed me on progress with my noble friend Lord Adonis, particularly in relation to the red book. It is absolutely right that my noble friend undertook to look at extending the principle behind the red book, which is given to every parent to track their child’s health development through the first years of its life, by exploring how we can develop a personal parent-led record that will run from birth to 11. It could ensure that parents have direct access to the critical information that they need to support the development of their child. This could be a universal tool to enable children’s practitioners and parents to identify issues early and seek prompt referrals. I will have to report more specifically on precisely what progress that approach has made to date, and I am happy to do that in writing.

My noble friend Lord Adonis also undertook on Report to seek to ensure that the elements which form the definition of supportive parenting in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are promoted in guidance. It is the Government’s view that we are more likely to help every parent to do the best for their child through programmes that support parents and can draw as appropriate on effective guidance and support, rather than making changes to primary legislation.

I hope that I have covered each point that noble Lords have made. I shall say a little more about the work of the Department for Children, Schools and Families, with which the commission is engaged. This is in relation to a project called Parent Know How, a DCSF initiative aimed at delivering better outcomes for children and parents through access to the information, advice and guidance that they need to support them in their parenting role. The initiative has a particular focus on meeting the needs of parents who are not as well served by current sources of help as they could be. These groups include parents of disabled children, fathers from all backgrounds and parents of teenage children. The service is made up of seven helplines, where funding is provided to organisations such as Parentline Plus and One Parent Families. There are also 11 new channel services, including text messaging, social media and websites including Dadspace, a social networking website aimed at fathers, and the Single Parent Action Network—or SPAN—a nationwide network of one-parent families and self-help groups aimed at families living in poverty and isolation, empowering them to improve their lives and life chances.

We recognise that the information support service will particularly need to reach out to groups that research shows can struggle to access the information and support they need. We are working closely with DCSF, as I outlined earlier, to ensure that the information support service is joined up to the parenting services by links to several of the new websites dealing with family relationships and networking, and self-help groups. We will also signpost parents to Parent Know How’s range of helplines. I hope that that outlines the range of activities that the commission is intended to be involved in, and is involved in, as part of the wider government approach to support for parenting.

We do not see the merit of expanding in primary legislation definitions around parental responsibility. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in particular, accepted that guidance was a real and effective route in taking forward those broader messages. Having said that, I hope that noble Lords will feel satisfied about the focus that the Government have on wider issues around parents’ responsibilities, how we are engaged in that, and the niche role of the commission in working alongside that without detracting from its primary obligation: to ensure that more maintenance is delivered to more children.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am extremely grateful for his offer to write and when he does, will he be good enough to send me a copy of the red book?

My Lords, I am happy to copy the letter to every noble Lord who has participated this evening. I shall send the noble Lord a copy of the red book.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for having outlined so fully some of the important initiatives that are being undertaken. I should like to state to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that this amendment and the other amendments in this group are not intended to promote a nanny state. We want to ensure that the message of responsibility comes earlier, before problems arise. Children are not accessories, nor are they routes to get benefits or housing. They are individuals who deserve supportive parenting. This is not about nannying anybody; it is about making sure that children get at least a basic level of supportive care and parenting.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his report. I shall clarify for the record that the word “health” is used in a much broader context than physical health and covers emotional health, mental health and aspects of nutrition that lead to good physical health. That is why we put the word “health” in the amendment.

The primary purpose is to promote child maintenance but, as the Minister said, there is a clear link between the responsibility of paying child maintenance and the responsibility of parenting. I am sure that I speak for my noble friend Lord Northbourne when I say that we hope that this will go into guidance on this Bill as well as into other guidance because it has become evident to us that there is a need for a clear, straightforward message on what supportive parenting is and for a clear definition that can be picked up, used and applied in teaching at every level—to children in schools, in antenatal classes and across the board—as well as in the many initiatives that the Minister outlined.

Given his helpful remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Clause 4 [Promotion of child maintenance]:

[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]

Clause 9 [Annual report to Secretary of State]:

moved Amendment No. 9:

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the Minister, the Government and the department for accepting the sense of the argument mounted by all sides in Committee. The amendment clarifies the situation; it is a minor amendment but improves the Bill. I am also grateful for the clarification about the timing of annual reports, because we have seen one or two annual reports from the Child Support Agency slip a little—we understand why that has been in the recent past, and those arguments are now past. There was a little bit of clarification; the amendment shines a little bit of extra light; and I extremely grateful to the Minister for bringing it forward at Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 [Repeal of sections 6 and 46]:

moved Amendment No. 10:

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment for three very obvious reasons. First, this is an even speedier way to help on the problem of child poverty, although, admittedly, that would be in families where the father, or the non-resident parent, is rather better off than on average. Secondly, the Treasury argument about work incentives is completely psychologically the wrong way around. The research from Alan Marsh has shown that reliable maintenance at whatever level acts as a form of privatised family credit. It is the reliability and security of that which allows the lone parent to take the risk of going into work with all the uncertainties that come with it. Therefore, the higher the level of child support payments, provided that they are regular, the more likely a lone parent is to go into work, not less likely. Not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last time, the Treasury has got it completely, perversely, back to front.

I hope that my noble friend can help me on my third point. I am not sure how this will work exactly. As far as I can see, the whole of the maintenance is to be paid over, whether voluntary or statutory. Then there is an expectation that if it exceeds £40, the lone parent will voluntarily declare this in some way so that it is then recovered back from the benefit bill. Frankly, that beggars belief and I do not think that it will happen. Under a voluntary system, no way will the mother say and no way will the department know or be informed unless someone perhaps is malevolent about this—possibly the non-resident parent who is seeking to cap his payments. That will not happen.

If it is under the statutory system, that is all very well, but it will put an additional responsibility on Jobcentre Plus staff. It is worth bearing in mind that at the moment NRPs who receive JSA are supposed to pay £5 a week or thereabouts to the parent with care from their benefit. It should be fairly straightforward: when the NRP gets his benefit, it should be docked and should go across. Does it happen? No, it does not; almost never. Why? Very simply, it is because, perfectly understandably, jobcentre staff do not, when they are interviewing someone coming in for JSA, ask a person whether he is obliged to pay child maintenance. Why? Again, perfectly understandably, their priority is to get him into work in the labour market and they do not deal with the secondary objectives of ticking boxes and asking whether he should be paying maintenance or whether £5 should be deducted? Jobcentre staff do not focus on that at all.

One of the biggest reasons for the number of lower paid or poorer parents with care not receiving benefit is because their ex is also on benefit and the money is not coming across, because Jobcentre Plus staff do not, cannot and will not handle the issue. Why, if they do not handle it now, do we think that they will under the new and more complicated system? Again, that defies belief. I hope that my noble friend can explain precisely the administrative steps, because I think that this is pie in the sky.

My Lords, following on from that, the Bill makes provision for increasing the current £5 to £7, which in a sense makes the situation even worse. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, rather anticipated my scepticism about this amendment, which originates with Gingerbread. I am sure that the Minister had this costed out and will proclaim the results of his investigations. I am told that the full cost of the amendment would be some £180 million. The noble Lord may say, “But it is only £40 million more”. The £40 million has to come from somewhere and I did not hear him tell me where he would get it from.

I would like to express my party’s congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his latest Budget because as the noble Lord himself remarked, the Government have already announced a new full disregard in the case of housing benefit and council tax benefit. It is not coming in straightaway, we have to wait for two years for the full effect, but it will be £20 a week from next April. Over and above that, he has proposed to increase the child element of the child tax credit by £50 a year above indexation. He has done a lot in this area. I am all for opposition parties, whether it is I and my colleagues or the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and his colleagues, pushing a little further, but quite honestly, in the straitened circumstances of the public finances at the moment, I think that he is asking for a bit too much.

I thank all noble Lords who have made some very interesting contributions to this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, explained that the purpose of these amendments is to link the repeal of Sections 6 and 46 of the Child Support Act 1991 with a full disregard for maintenance payments in the main income-related benefits. In the Child Maintenance White Paper we said that we would extend the existing £10 per week disregard to cases on the old child support scheme, and we also made the commitment that from 2010-11, parents with care on benefit would be able to keep significantly more of the maintenance paid before their benefit was affected. Subsequently, as has been acknowledged—I thank both noble Lords for their support and congratulations on this—we have announced that the disregard will be increased to £20 a week by the end of 2008, together with a full disregard in housing benefit and council tax benefit from this point. The disregard will then double to £40 a week from April 2010. These changes will benefit some 350,000 children and will lift around 50,000 children out of poverty.

The noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Skelmersdale, both expressed the view in Grand Committee that the disregards will set an artificial cap on the level of maintenance, but as I pointed out, almost 90 per cent of the current caseload on benefit has a liability of less than £40, although I acknowledge what might happen in respect of the other 10 per cent. But removing compulsion by repealing Sections 6 and 46 is the first step in moving towards a new system of child maintenance that will go a long way towards delivering our aim to encourage parents to make their own arrangements for maintenance while maintaining a statutory maintenance service for those who cannot or do not wish to do that. Moreover, it will give parents with care on benefit the same options as those who are not, and we should not make the timing of this conditional upon having a full disregard. However, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, acknowledged the Government’s focus on child poverty, as I acknowledged the important contribution that child maintenance can make towards achieving our objectives.

On costs, the figures show that if we moved to a full disregard in 2008, the additional cost from the current proposed position would be around £55 million in 2008-09, £110 million in 2009-10 and £45 million a year thereafter. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, that is a not insignificant cost.

My noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, both spoke of disincentives to work and asked where we are on it. The initial research undertaken was pretty inconclusive, but I do not think that it looked at the effect of higher disregards in benefit without taking account of the impact of full disregards on housing benefit and council tax benefit, which can operate in the opposite direction because they are in-work benefits. But I can say that we are expecting to publish further research in this area quite shortly. My noble friend asked how it would work for Jobcentre Plus, and a point stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was whether it would impose an administrative burden. Incidentally, my noble friend made a point about circumstances where both the non-resident parent and the parent with care were on benefit and the fact that the system does not deliver payments across that. With respect, I am not sure that that is absolutely right. There have certainly been challenges in delivery, I am aware of that, and when I looked at this a while ago, there was a backlog, but it was a backlog that was moving, so payments were being made across. However, it is an important issue.

On the engagement of Jobcentre Plus in the process, declaring income is a standard part of a benefit claimant’s responsibility and child maintenance will be no different regardless of the amount received. The obligation will be to report the full child maintenance amount and not only the excess in respect of the disregard. Jobcentre Plus already has processes in place to deal with cases where a source of income is erratic—for example, where a client receives part-time earnings—and the same processes will apply to maintenance payments.

We recognise that there will be an increase in reported changes of circumstances but this is offset by a reduction in the work as Jobcentre Plus will no longer be required to gather information for the CSA or carry out good cause interviews, decision making and the imposition and maintenance of produced benefit decisions. We believe the changes will be cost neutral overall and Jobcentre Plus is confident that it will have the capacity to manage the increase in reported changes of circumstances.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I realise that this is the Report stage but it seems such a long time ago since we were in Committee.

My concern still is on the declaration by the lone parent. My noble friend rightly said that when a lone parent applies for income support or JSA they are required to declare other income. Actually, they do not. What we have done, because of the limited disregards allowed on income support, is send many lone parents, wittingly or unwittingly, into the grey economy of undeclared income, also known as fraud. Certainly all the research on fraud shows that after men who do not declare income while claiming JSA and housing benefit fraud, where several people are claiming from the same household with the connivance of the landlord, the third largest group is lone parents failing to declare.

If we are not careful we will build into the maintenance system the same kind of grey fraud area that we have in undeclared earnings of lone parents. We should do everything we can to build fraud out of benefit systems and not into them. My noble friend risks building more potential for fraud into the system.

My Lords, I acknowledge that we need to do everything we can to make sure that fraud in the benefit system is challenged, tackled and designed out wherever possible. A great deal of work has been done on this. Indeed, the data in recent years show that benefit fraud has reduced quite significantly. I reiterate that 90 per cent of settlements in child maintenance arrangements are already below the £40 disregard level. With the move towards encouraging voluntary arrangements where appropriate, it is quite possible that some people currently on benefit, particularly at the higher end of the payment arrangements, will go into the voluntary system, which is something we want to see happen.

If child maintenance is paid, we would encourage the benefit recipient to report it To the extent that they do not, obviously some of the pressures on Jobcentre Plus that my noble friend mentioned will be diminished. But that is a consequence of the redesigned system and we will have to make it work. As I have said, Jobcentre Plus is confident that it has the capacity to tackle that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is looking equally sceptical, but these are the data that I have and I see no reason why the system cannot be made to operate.

Having said all that, I am sure that I have satisfied each of the points that have been raised and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, on lump sum payments, I cannot resist quoting Lord Justice May—who, as the Minister knows, is a very distinguished Court of Appeal judge—in a recent case involving the rules governing the treatment of a lump sum payment of child maintenance. He said that they were so complex that they were “obscure to the point of near darkness”. The Minister is wrong about the ability of Jobcentre Plus to do this and I hope he will go away and carefully cross-examine the interlocutors who bring him this information because it is a real problem.

The other thing is that it is not safe to say that 90 per cent of the client group is outwith the 40 per cent ceiling, because lump sum payments come underneath that, as do the different payments for different families from different non-resident fathers. I ask the Minister—and I know he will do this, because he is conscientious—to go away and ask the people who have been briefing him to give him some further and better particulars about both of these points. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who is not without experience in these matters, and I share misgivings that require further investigation.

My Lords, would it help the noble Lord if I undertook to get those people who brief me to write me a fine letter with more detail on this matter that I can distribute to noble Lords?

My Lords, if that can be shared around, I will happily settle for that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]

My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.