SCRUTINY

Research

  121. Professor Jonathan Bradshaw criticised the lack of systematic evaluation of child support policy[347] although this was contested by Baroness Hollis.[348] The IFS researchers suggested that information on individuals in the CSA administrative database should be used to model the determinants of compliance and the effects of reform, and that non-resident parents should be identified in the Family Resources Survey data.[349] The Department of Social Security plans to conduct baseline surveys in 1999 and 2000-01 to allow tracking of attitudes and behavioural changes in order to inform evaluation against the objective that the new scheme should be 'accessible, comprehensible and responsive to parents.'[350] We recommend that the Department of Social Security should give priority to funding a systematic programme of independent research into the operation of child support legislation.

Consultation

  122. The Government published its Green Paper, Children First: a new approach to child support, Cm 3992, on 6 July 1998. The Green Paper invited comments on its proposals by 30 November 1998. A summary of the responses received was placed in the Library of the House of Commons[351] and responses from organisations and professionals which did not request confidentiality are available on request from the Department of Social Security. The responses to the Green Paper showed there was "overwhelming support for the proposals to make major changes to the existing system."[352] The Green Paper was only one part of an extensive consultation exercise, which Baroness Hollis recounted to us in some detail[353]. We recognise the Minister's efforts to listen carefully to all shades of opinion and we compliment her on the extent of consultation that has been undertaken.

123. The White Paper A new contract for welfare: Children's Rights and Parents' Responsibilities was published on Thursday 1 July 1999. Seven months had elapsed since the five-month consultation period ended in November 1998. Baroness Hollis told us that because of the "overwhelming support for the Green Paper the changes in the White Paper are perhaps somewhat less than might have been anticipated."[354]

Draft Bill  

  124. When the Green Paper was published in July 1998, the previous Secretary of State for Social Security told the House of Commons that she would "certainly" make the draft Bill available so that this select committee could conduct pre-legislative hearings[355]. In evidence to us on 22 July 1998, Baroness Hollis said that it was hoped that a draft Bill would be published during the 1998-99 Session.[356] We are disappointed that it has not proved possible for the Government to fulfil its earlier intention of publishing its Child Support proposals in the form of a draft Bill. Baroness Hollis explained that the source of the problem was the shortage of parliamentary draftsmen.[357] Her view was that as the legislation will be based on the White Paper, the Social Security Select Committee's inquiry would be a "reasonably good proxy"[358] for scrutiny of a draft Bill. Our previous experience in considering a fully drafted Bill[359] has convinced us that the new procedure put forward by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons[360] has the potential to be a very positive extension of Parliament's ability to scrutinise legislation and for a wider debate to take place involving members of the public affected by proposals before they come before Parliament for formal enactment.

125. We will be following closely the progress of the child support legislation when it comes before Parliament; it may be some time before it becomes apparent to what extent basing pre-legislative scrutiny on a White Paper is an adequate substitute for a full draft Bill. As Parliament has not had the opportunity to consider a draft Bill, we recommend that the legislation on child support should be committed to a Special Standing Committee in order to enable its Members to take evidence directly on the details of the legislation which they will then proceed to debate and (if they wish) to amend. We note that one of the few precedents for Special Standing Committees is that on the 1984 Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill, perhaps because family law is not normally subject to party political controversy.

A Child Support Advisory Committee

  126. The detail of regulations on child support deserve particularly close scrutiny, but child support falls outwith the responsibilities of the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC),[361] which does valuable work in scrutinising draft social security regulations, often by means of extensive consultation. The SSAC was established by the Social Security Act 1980 to take over the advisory functions of the former Great Britain and Northern Ireland Supplementary Benefits Commissions and the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The SSAC has also assumed advisory responsibility for Family Income Supplement (later Family Credit), Child Benefit and Housing Benefit.[362] The Child Poverty Action Group described the role of the SSAC as "a crucial part of the whole legislative process".[363] Baroness Hollis drew our attention to the distinction between benefit provision and family law.[364] We recommend that the Government should consider either extending the terms of reference of the Social Security Advisory Committee, or creating a Child Support Advisory Committee on similar lines, to scrutinise secondary legislation on child support, as part of the process of building public confidence in the new child support system.

CONCLUSION

127. The Government's White Paper proposals have been generally welcomed. There remain areas of concern, many of them highlighted in this Report, which should be the subject of detailed attention as the legislation passes through its several stages in Parliament.

348   Ev p 201-2. Back

349   Ev p 167. Back

350   DSS Research Programme 1999/2000, June 1999; see also Ev p 175 para 8. Back

351   HC Deb 1 July 1999 vol 334 col 431; see Appendix 1. Back

352   Appendix 1, "Overall findings". Back

353   Q. 468; see also the DSS list of research references Ev p 201-202. Back

354   Q. 1. Back

355   HC Deb 6 July 1988 vol 315 col 749. Back

356   HC 1031-i, Q. 3. Back

357   Q. 4. Back

358   Q. 5. Back

359   Fifth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Pensions on Divorce, HC 869. See also Fifth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1998-99, Pensions on Divorce: Parts III and IV of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, HC 304. Back

360   First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 1997-98, The Legislative Process, HC 190. Back

361   Q. 308. Back

362   FIS and Child Benefit had not been covered by any advisory committee prior to the 1980 Act. The SSAC's remit was extended by Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 to replace the Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances (ACRRRA) from April 1983. Back

363   Q. 143; see also Ev p 49. Back

364   Q. 531. Back