The Committee deliberated.

Resolved, That the Committee inquire into the plans for the future of the Child Support Agency set out in A new contract for welfare: Children's Rights and Parents' Responsibilities, Cm 4349.

The Committee deliberated.

Child Support: Baroness Hollis of Heigham, a Member of the House of Lords, attending by leave of that House, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Lords) for Department of Social Security, Mr Mike Street, Policy Manager, Child Support, Department of Social Security, Mrs Faith Boardman, Chief Executive, Child Support Agency, were examined.

Child Support: Professor Gwynn Davis, University of Bristol, Professor Nick Wikeley, University of Southampton, were examined.

Child Support: Mrs Anne Parker, CBE, Independent Case Examiner, and Mrs Elspeth Cooper, Operations Manager, were examined.

Child Support: Mr John Avery, Deputy Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, was examined.

[Adjourned till to-morrow at a quarter to Ten

Child Support: Ms Maeve Sherlock, Director, and Ms Alison Garnham, Policy Officer, National Council for One Parent Families, were examined.

Child Support: Mr Martin Barnes, Director, and Ms Djuna Thurley, Parliamentary Officer, Child Poverty Action Group, were examined.

Child Support: Dr Dorit Braun, Chief Executive, and Ms Cheryl Walters, Head of Research, National Stepfamily Association, were examined.

Child Support: Mr Nicholas Mostyn QC, Family Law Bar Association, was examined.

Child Support: Mr James Pirrie, Solicitors Family Law Association, was examined.

Child Support: Mr Peter Watson-Lee and Ms Simret Parmar, The Law Society, were examined.

Mr Andrew Dismore declared an interest as a member of The Law Society.

Child Support: Mr Peter Watson-Lee, Committee Member, and Ms Simret Parmar, Children's Law Policy Officer, The Law Society, were further examined.

[Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Child Support: Mr Andy Farquarson, National Association for Child Support Action, was examined.

Child Support: Mr Jim Parton, Chairman, Ms Karen Randall and Mr Barry Pearson, Families Need Fathers, were examined.

Child Support: Professor Jane Millar, University of Bath, and Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, University of York, were examined.

Child Support: Mr Roger Smith, Social Policy Manager, and Ms Natalie Cronin, Social Policy Officer, The Children's Society, were examined.

Child Support: Mr Malcolm Tetley, Mr Charles Law and Ms Moira Campbell, the Public and Commercial Services Union, were examined.

[Adjourned till to-morrow at a quarter to Ten o'clock.

Child Support: Dr Helen Barnes, University of North London, Dr Gillian Paull, Institute for Fiscal Studies, and Professor Ian Walker, University of Warwick and Institute for Fiscal Studies, Family Policy Studies Centre, were examined.

Child Support: Mr John Wheatley, Head of Social Policy, National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, was examined.

Child Support: Baroness Hollis of Heigham, a Member of the House of Lords, attending by leave of that House, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Lords) for Social Security, Mrs Faith Boardman, Chief Executive, Child Support Agency, and Mr Mike Street, Policy Manager, Child Support, Department of Social Security, were further examined.

The Committee further deliberated.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 20 October at half-past Ten o'clock.

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report (The 1999 Child Support White Paper), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to16 read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 17 and 18 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 19 to 25 read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Mr Andrew Dismore)—brought up, read the first and second time and inserted (now paragraph 26).

Paragraph 26 (now paragraph 27) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 27 (now paragraph 28) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 28 read, as follows:

"Baroness Hollis recognised that there was a "tension" between conflicting priorities of children of 'first' and 'second' families. Ms Karen Randall of Families Need Fathers objected to the Government's proposal on the grounds that "all children of all families should be treated equally as a moral principle." Ms Natalie Cronin of The Children's Society also argued that "the prevailing principle should be equality between the children." It was suggested that there would be a 'double dividend' for step-families because not only were the dependant children in the 'second' family taken into account when calculating a non-resident parent's liability for children in the 'first' family, but any child support being received into the 'second' family would be ignored in assessing the non-resident parent's income. We prefer the alternative approach set out in the Green Paper that maintenance liability should be split equally between all children."

Amendments made.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out from the word "income" to the end of the paragraph.—(Mr Desmond Swayne.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Another Amendment made.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to (now paragraph 29).

Paragraphs 29 to 33 (now paragraphs 30 to 34) read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 34 to 36 (now paragraphs 35 to 37) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 37 to 39 (now paragraphs 38 to 40) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 40 read, as follows:

"While there will evidently be a relatively small number of cases where the non-resident parent is so wealthy that the abolition of the maximum contribution would be an issue, such cases could have a high profile and affect the public perception of the policy's fairness. In the final analysis, the child support formula should be seen clearly to be related to the cost of bringing up children and not as a straightforward 'tax' levied on the non-resident parent. We recommend that the Government should re-examine the possibility of inserting in the legislation an upper limit on the automatic application of the revised CSA formula."

Motion made, to leave out the paragraph and insert the following new paragraph:

"We accept that there is a risk that a few high­profile cases involving payments above the maximum contribution may negatively affect public perception. However, on balance, we are persuaded by the case that the children of wealthier parents should have the right to continue to share in that parental wealth. We therefore do not support the introduction of an upper limit on the automatic application of the revised formula."—(Ms Karen Buck.)

Motion made, and Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph inserted (now paragraph 41).

Paragraphs 41 to 46 (now paragraphs 42 to 47) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 47 (now paragraph 48) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 48 to 50 (now paragraphs 49 to 51) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 51 read, as follows:

"In cases where the issues are straightforward and rest on what the White Paper calls "objective facts", the Government proposes that applications for exceptional variations should be determined by an official caseworker. More complex issues would be sent straight to a tribunal. Mrs Anne Parker, the Independent Case Examiner, suggested that "a great deal of further thought" needed to be given to drafting legislation on how the discretion allowed to officials should be exercised consistently. Mr Nicholas Mostyn QC for the Family Law Bar Association warned that the Government's proposals on the departures system could conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998:

"I am at a loss to understand how the judicial power to determine the civil obligation of a parent to pay child support under the departures scheme can be vested in an official without offending Article 6 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] which prescribes a "fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law"."

Under the Human Rights Act 1998, Ministers are required to certify that each Bill introduced into Parliament complies with the European Convention on Human Rights."

Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from the word "consistently" to the end of the paragraph.—(Mr Andrew Dismore.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to (now paragraph 52).

Paragraph 52 (now paragraph 53) read, amended and agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration of the Chairman's draft Report be now adjourned.- (The Chairman.)

Report to be further considered upon Wednesday 3 November.

The Committee further deliberated.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 3 November at half-past Nine o'clock

Consideration of Chairman's draft Report (The 1999 Child Support White Paper) resumed.

Paragraphs 53 to 59 (now paragraphs 54 to 60) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 60 (now paragraph 61) read, as follows:

"We have reservations about the wisdom of allowing unlimited access to the CSA formula in all cases since the qualities of simplicity and rough justice, which may be necessary and appropriate for dealing with circumstances where the parent with care has had to resort to seeking benefit from the taxpayer, may not cope adequately with more complicated circumstances in which a private arrangement has been reached and where the taxpayer's interests are not involved."

An Amendment made.

Question put, That the paragraph, as amended, stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph 61 (now paragraph 62) read, as follows:

"We recommend that the proposed right of access for 'private' non-benefit cases to the CSA after an agreement has been enforced for a year should not be brought into force until the Child Support Agency has had time to demonstrate its effectiveness in handling the new formula."

An Amendment made.

Question put, That the paragraph, as amended, stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph 62 (now paragraph 63) read, as follows:

"We recommend that further research be carried out into the extent to which the interests of the children concerned would be adversely affected by allowing parties to 'private' agreements to have recourse to the rough justice of the new child support formula, and that the results of that research should be published before Parliament is asked to approve any proposal to allow parties to apply for a CSA assessment to replace a court order or registered agreement."

Amendment proposed, to leave out the paragraph and insert the following new paragraph -

"We support the White Paper proposal that private cases may be brought to the CSA after an agreement has been in force for a year but we recommend that the Government should monitor carefully the effect on the interests of the children concerned in such cases."—(Mrs Joan Humble.)

Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 63 and 64 (now paragraphs 64 and 65) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 65 (now paragraph 66) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 66 (now paragraph 67) read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 67 and 68 (now paragraphs 68 and 69) read, amended and agreed to.

A paragraph— (The Chairman)— brought up, read the first and second time and inserted (now paragraph 70).

Paragraph 69 (now paragraph 71) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 70 to 76 (now paragraphs 72 to 78) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 77 (now paragraph 79) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 78 to 82 (now paragraphs 80 to 84) read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Mr Andrew Dismore)—brought up, read the first and second time and inserted (now paragraph 85) .

Paragraph 83 (now paragraph 86) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 84 (now paragraph 87) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 85 (now paragraph 88) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 86 (now paragraph 89) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 87 to 90 (now paragraphs 90 to 93) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 91 (now paragraph 94) read, amended and agreed to.

Several paragraphs—(The Chairman)—brought up, read the first and second time and inserted (now paragraphs 95 to 100).

Paragraph 92 (now paragraph 101) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 93 (now paragraph 102) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 94 read, as follows:

"As the trade union representing the overwhelming majority of CSA staff as well as employees in the Inland Revenue, the Public and Commercial Services Union welcomed the White Paper's proposal to retain the CSA within the DSS, and suggested that the Inland Revenue lacked the practical expertise and experience to deliver a child support system. Baroness Hollis told us that "to ask the Inland Revenue to extend its activities not only to the quarter of a million non-resident fathers who are on JSA and benefits and so on, but also to the 70 per cent of our caseload who are not paying taxes seemed, well, in the end in the Inland Revenue's judgment not to be appropriate." We recommend that the possibility of transferring the CSA to the Inland Revenue should be included in the terms of reference of the next Prior Options Review of the Child Support Agency under the Next Steps process."

Amendment proposed, in line 7 to leave out from the word "appropriate" to the end of the paragraph and insert the words "We recommend that the CSA should remain within the Department of Social Security."—(Mrs Joan Humble.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to (now paragraph 103).

Paragraphs 95 and 96 (now paragraphs 104 and 105) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 97 (now paragraph 106) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 98 (now paragraph 107) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 99 (now paragraph 108) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 100 and 101 (now paragraphs 109 and 110) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 102 (now paragraph 111) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 103 (now paragraph 112) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 104 read, as follows:

"Mrs Faith Boardman, the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, assured us that the CSA had a dedicated unit of Welsh speakers and that the "staff mix" of ethnic minorities of local offices reflected the local neighbourhood. She said that there were practical difficulties in providing face-to-face interviews in a full range of ethnic minority languages. We recommend that special efforts should be made to ensure the availability of all CSA forms in the most common minority languages in the United Kingdom. We recommend that interpreters should be provided for face-to-face interviews in the most widely spoken ethnic minority languages in the United Kingdom."

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 113).

Paragraphs 105 to 109 (now paragraphs 114 to 118) read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 110 to 112 (now paragraphs 119 to 121) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 113 to 117 (now paragraphs 122 to 126) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 118 read, as follows:

"Inertia and the lack of parliamentary time for reform can result in unsatisfactory legislation being allowed to remain in place until public opinion, or political advantage, becomes so overwhelming that priority is at last given to reform. One way to ensure that legislation is regularly reviewed is to insert a 'sunset' mechanism to require the revival of expiring laws, as for example in the periodic renewal of counter-terrorism legislation. The success or otherwise of the new child support system will not be apparent for some time. We consider that Parliament should be given the opportunity in a few years' time to decide whether the new system has proved itself to be effective in supporting children who live apart from one of their parents. We recommend that a provision should be inserted into the child support legislation that the powers conferred under ti should lapse on the tenth anniversary of its coming into force."

Paragraph disagreed to.

Paragraph 119 (now paragraph 127) read and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Tenth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.

Several Papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.

Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House.

Several Papers were ordered to be reported to the House.