COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT  

OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)

Child Maintenance Bill

29 May 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Gregory Campbell (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Alban Maginness
Mr Fra McCann
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:
The Minister for Social Development (Ms Margaret Ritchie)
Mr John O’Neill ) Department for Social Development
Ms Margaret Sisk )

The Chairperson (Mr Campbell):
Good morning, Minister. It is good to see you. You are here to speak about the proposed Child Maintenance Bill, accompanied by departmental officials Mr John O’Neill and Ms Margaret Sisk. Would you like to make a few opening remarks?

The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie):
I will, with your indulgence, and the indulgence of the Committee. I thank the Chairperson and the Committee for affording me this opportunity. I wish to seek the Committee’s support for the use of the accelerated passage procedure for the proposed Child Maintenance Bill, and, in so doing, comply with the requirements of Assembly Standing Order 40(3), which requires me to explain to the Committee the reason, or reasons, for accelerated passage; the consequences of accelerated passage not being granted; and any steps that I have taken to minimise the future use of the accelerated passage procedure. As you are probably aware, I was granted Executive approval for accelerated passage on Thursday of last week, and that is why I am here today.

I am making this request because I want to ensure that child support customers in Northern Ireland benefit from the reforms provided for in the Bill at the same time as child support customers in Great Britain. The proposed Child Maintenance Bill will make provision for Northern Ireland in correspondence with the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill in Great Britain, which is expected to receive Royal Assent on 4 June. The Department for Work and Pensions is planning to make regulations, shortly after Royal Assent is granted, to implement some provisions from July 2008. If I am to introduce the corresponding provisions here, the Bill needs to pass all Stages in the Assembly before the summer recess. As my officials have already briefed the Committee on the main policy proposals, I shall provide a brief outline of the main aims of the Bill, and my reasons for seeking accelerated passage.

The Child Support Agency was set up in 1993 because of concerns about the different levels of maintenance decided by the courts. The objectives of the child support system were to provide better support to children and families, and to contribute to a reduction in child poverty. Most people would agree that the current system is not working, and that those objectives are not being met. It is widely acknowledged that that is because the current system is too complicated, and attempts to take too many factors into account. Too few children receive maintenance. One-in-three non-resident parents fails to pay any of the money owed to their children, and that affects approximately 12,600 children.

The proposed Child Maintenance Bill is an important piece of legislation, which makes tackling child poverty the main priority by ensuring that more of the maintenance paid goes directly to children. The Bill promotes parental responsibility by removing the requirement for parents with care, on benefits, to claim child maintenance. It also includes the removal of the provision to impose a reduced benefit decision in cases where the parent with care cannot show good cause for opting out of applying for child maintenance. Under the current arrangements, where a parent with care cannot show good cause, his or her benefit is reduced by £24·20 a week. That requirement to claim child maintenance will be removed from July onwards.

If the Bill does not receive accelerated passage, a reduced benefit amount will continue to be imposed here. Those parents with care will continue to have £24·20 a week deducted from their benefit until such time as the law is changed.

Removing the requirement for parents with care on benefits to use the statutory scheme would enable parents to make their own arrangements to manage child maintenance in a way that is best for themselves and their children. It also enables parents on benefits to have the same choice about making their own arrangements as parents who do not receive benefits. Arrangements are more likely to be complied with if parents make their own.

At the same time that that compulsion is removed, a new information and support service will be available to help parents make the best choice for themselves and their families. That service will include the provision of a standard maintenance arrangement form and an online calculator to estimate the level of child maintenance. That will enable parents to make informed choices about their maintenance arrangements.

The Social Security Agency will refer benefit claimants to that information and support service. That will ensure that low-income families have every opportunity to make an informed choice about the options available to them. It will also help to minimise the risk of those families ending up with no maintenance arrangements at all. Parents will be able to opt out of the statutory maintenance service only if they both agree. When a voluntary arrangement fails or is found to be unsuitable, parents will be supported to move across to the statutory maintenance service.

To provide a stronger incentive for parents with care to seek maintenance, and for non-resident parents to pay, the amount of maintenance that parents with care on benefit can keep before it affects the level of benefit that they receive will be increased to £20 a week by the end of this year, and £40 a week in 2010. That increase in the benefit disregard underlines the commitment to making sure that child maintenance does more to reduce child poverty.

For those parents who choose to — or need to — make a statutory arrangement, the process will be simpler, smoother and quicker. In addition, much less information will be required from the non-resident parent. In that sense, it is a move that will benefit everyone concerned. The proposed Bill makes provision for the Department for Social Development to obtain details of the income of the non-resident parent directly from HM Revenue and Customs; rather than from the non-resident parent directly, which is the situation at present.

The assessment will be updated annually to reflect the changes in the tax data of the non-resident parent. The use of HM Revenue and Customs data will provide the Department with easily accessible and accurate details of earned income. That will mean that money will flow more quickly to more children.

I am aware that concern has been expressed about the needs of children in second families being taken into account in the assessment. The current arrangements, whereby account is taken of the number of children living with the non-resident parent, whether or not they are the parent, will remain unchanged under the proposed reforms. The only change proposed concerns the percentage rates, in order to take account of the move to gross income.

Although the changes will make the assessment process easier, it is a fact that no matter how easy we make it for people, some non-resident parents will attempt to avoid their responsibilities to their own children. As I said earlier, one-in-three non-resident parents fails to pay any of the money that is owed to their children. For those cases, the Department will be provided with new collection and enforcement powers. I stress that those enforcement powers will be used only when non-resident parents will not pay, as opposed to those who cannot pay.

The use of administrative liability orders will make the processes of enforcing arrears considerably quicker, while the power to collect money from bank accounts and other financial resources will mean that the Department can get money flowing more quickly to more children.

If a non-resident parent still refuses to pay, the Department will be able to apply to the court in order to deal more effectively with non-compliance. Those measures will go some way towards implementing the recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee in its recent report on the Child Support Agency. Those recommendations stated that additional powers should be sought, which may help to reduce the amount of arrears owed by non-resident parents.

It is not right that any child should live in poverty because a parent fails to provide adequate support. It is right and fair therefore, that we use effective measures against those who chose to deny their children the support that is due to them.

I trust that the Committee is content with the broad thrust of the draft Bill and with why I need to seek accelerated passage for it — and the consequences of accelerated passage not being granted. As for future use of the accelerated passage procedure, I will consider each Bill on its own merit.

Given the policy of parity on social security, child support and pensions, I expect that I will have to come back to the Committee and the Assembly to seek support and agreement for the use of the accelerated passage procedure for Bills dealing with those areas.

Two to three weeks ago, I agreed to fully consult and brief all Committee members when Green or White Papers are made available in respect of potential Westminster legislation on social security. Two days ago, I reaffirmed that during the Second Stage of the Mesothelioma, etc., Bill.

I fully appreciate that, by shortening the process, the Committee will not have the same opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. I hope that members will make full use of the other opportunities to make their views known and to discuss the issues, not only today, but during the Bill’s passage through the Assembly.

My problem is that I want to tackle child poverty and I want to ensure that more money is able to flow to children. On 1 April 2008, the Child Support Agency was taken within the full ambit of the Department, because I want to improve that agency’s performance. The purpose of those reforms is to simplify procedures, to ensure that money flows more quickly, and so that we are able to tackle child poverty. Thank you, Chairman, and Committee members.

The Chairperson:
Thank you, Minister. I have a couple of questions, and then I will open the question-and-answer session. You mentioned the new enforcement powers, and quite rightly made the distinction between the pursuit of absent parents who will not pay, and those who cannot pay. What are the resource implications of introducing those new powers in your Department?

The Minister for Social Development:
I will hand over to Mr O’Neill, who will deal with the detail of that matter.

Mr John O’Neill (Department for Social Development):
The enforcement of those powers — once a matter for the Child Support Agency — will be a matter for the Department, but will hopefully be used only as a last resort. There are other methods of collecting money to go utilise before having to make use of the courts or those new administrative powers. At the end of the day, the effort is concentrated on getting money from people, rather than having to use those enforcement powers.

Data from Revenue and Customs relating to the self-employed makes it much easier to assess those cases instead of having to chase people because details of their income — on which the child support assessment is based — are not readily available. Once an assessment is made, money will be taken through banks and other financial institutions.

The use of those measures — curfew orders; disqualification from driving; withdrawal of passports — is seen very much as a last resort. The enforcement effort will be focused on getting that money to the parent with care through the use of other methods.

The Chairperson:
I understand the use of those measures as a last resort, but that still does not answer the question about the resource implications.

The Minister for Social Development:
Chairman, I believe that you are talking about staff and financial resources.

The Chairperson:
Yes.

The Minister for Social Development:
As you appreciate, the financial resources relate back to annually managed expenditure (AME), which comes directly from the Exchequer, but I presume that you mean the staff implications for the Department.

The Chairperson:
Yes.

Ms Margaret Sisk (Department for Social Development):
One of the main thrusts of the draft Bill is to remove the compulsion for people to claim child maintenance. The idea is to encourage more parents to reach voluntary agreements and that the Department will only be forced to look after people who refuse to enter such agreements and who refuse to pay after they have gone through the normal processes. The projections suggest that the resource implications for staffing should, through time, reduce with the number of cases that the Department deals with.

Owing to the fact that part of the enforcement process will go through the courts, the Department has already transferred money to the Court Service to help it to cope with the increasing number of cases that it is expected to have to deal with. That was a relatively small amount of around £120,000, which was the read-across from what the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) paid to the Ministry of Justice for dealing with enforcement in GB.

The majority of the enforcement powers are already with the Department. For example, we can currently remove driving licences. The draft Bill adds the facility to remove a passport, and it adds curfew provisions. We are hopeful that, by simplifying the system and encouraging people to make their own arrangements, compulsion will be a last resort. We do not expect excessive resource implications to result from the changes to the enforcement powers.

The Chairperson:
In summary, the substance of the Bill is to introduce more vigorous pursuit of people who deliberately do not pay.

The Minister for Social Development:
That is correct — it is to ensure that money flows to children.

The Chairperson:
Does that mean that there will be no additional resource implication because of the extra staff that might be required to achieve that?

Ms Sisk:
We do not expect that extra staff will be required.

Mr J O’Neill:
Some of the people who currently come to the Child Support Agency or the Department will make their own arrangements in the future. Therefore, the workload will be reduced.

The Minister for Social Development:
I will closely monitor the situation, as I am sure you would expect.

The Chairperson:
I have one more question, Minister. Earlier, you said that the amount of maintenance that parents on benefit can keep before it affects the level of benefit that they receive will be increased to £20 a week, and then £40 a week. What is that a change from?

Ms Sisk:
The amount is currently £10. It will be doubled to £20 by the end of 2008, and it will be quadrupled to £40 by 2010.

Ms Ní Chuilín:
Everyone agrees that any parent who refuses to pay for the maintenance of their child must be pursued. However, I am concerned at some of the ways in which the conclusions of the draft Bill were constructed. The Committee has not had much time to scrutinise it, and I suppose that that is a consequence of accelerated passage. I note that a completed equality impact assessment (EQIA) has been carried out, but was that a full EQIA? The information on that is a bit scant.

The Minister for Social Development:
The Department carried out the standard 12-week consultation period. That consultation period ran from 7 December 2007 to 29 February 2008. We received two responses, one from Disability Action and one from Advice Northern Ireland.

At that stage, I did not consider that the policy proposals should be changed as a result of those responses. We received no responses from any other Department, including the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I was concerned about that matter, and my officials held deep discussions with officials from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It was agreed that further work on the EQIA will take place in parallel with the procedure of the passage of the Bill.

The Chairperson:
Can you repeat the dates during which the consultation period took place?

The Minister for Social Development:
It took place between 7 December 2007 and 29 February 2008, and two responses were received.

Ms Ní Chuilín:
I want to make an observation, of which you are probably aware. It is unproductive to carry out consultations during holiday periods because, by and large, people do not think about EQIAs at Christmas. Nevertheless, I take on board what you said — it is better to do it than not to do it.

In the material that we saw, there was little reference to reducing child poverty, particularly — although the Minister mentioned it — with regard to its impact on second families. Furthermore, no consideration was given to family size. The Bill seems only to be concerned with lone-parent families and disabled people.

Given that poverty-rates are now calculated before taking account of housing costs — a move from net to gross income — I am concerned about accepting claims for an overall reduction. On what information was that change based? There are a couple of caveats in the Bill that appear to be OK; however, having sought external, independent advice about how such figures were calculated, and although the Bill’s sentiments are to decrease poverty, it has the potential to actually increase poverty.

I understand the challenge of introducing parity legislation, but the consultation process in England is not the same as a section 75 equality impact assessment — which is distinct legislation — that we conduct here. Consequently, introducing the English consultation process, which would obscure aspects of, or even negate the requirement for, a section 75 equality impact assessment, would constitute a breach, and that must be flagged up.

I note also that the Department quoted a disability rate of 13%. The figure that we obtained is approximately 20%, so there is a bit of an anomaly.

My final point concerns the aspect of benefit disregard. What is “good cause”? We must spell that out. Does the term “good cause” apply to women or families who have been victims of physical, mental or even sexual abuse? Offers must be explained clearly because, when it comes to good cause, not everybody is in a position to make an informed choice. Although I appreciate the distinction between people who refuse to pay and people who cannot pay, that matter must be clarified.

The Minister for Social Development:
The member raised several points. I will take some, and my officials will address those that involve technical detail.

A large proportion of the consultation time was not taken up by a holiday period. Nowadays, in the normal run of things, people take limited holidays. I accept the member’s point about the Christmas period; nonetheless, only two responses were received.

The day before the Executive meeting, I received, through my Department, a detailed letter from OFMDFM concerning all the matters raised by Ms Ní Chuilín today, and I recognise that further work is required to gather the information that is necessary to assess the future impact of the new arrangements in Northern Ireland. Officials in my Department will consult with OFMDFM officials. However, since last week, we have heard nothing from them. In any event, we will attempt to identify a way forward as soon as possible, and we will carry out any necessary work in the next 12 months.

Under the parity principle, any adverse differential impacts on equality of opportunity or good relations will be shared with the Department for Work and Pensions. Furthermore, as I am sure the Chairperson and Ms Ní Chuilín will agree, as a result of section 75 requirements, Northern Ireland has strengthened safeguards, and that is why an equality impact assessment was undertaken. Due to the scientific nature of equality impact assessments, none is ever perfect. Notwithstanding that, last week, I gave an undertaking for further work to be conducted in parallel with the passage of the legislation.

Most importantly, money must not be lost to children here because we have failed to deliver legislation at the same time as GB. I do not want people — particularly children and those who live in impoverished conditions — to lose out.

Ms Sisk:
I will cover some of the other points, beginning with what constitutes “good cause”. I assume that the member is referring to why someone might refuse to claim child maintenance?

Ms Ní Chuilín:
Yes.

Ms Sisk:
We are lifting reduced-benefit decisions, so the matter of good cause will no longer be an issue.

There will no longer be a compulsion on parents with care to claim child maintenance, and that is one of the main thrusts of the Bill and the main reason why we are asking for accelerated passage for the Bill. Currently, parents with care have their benefit reduced if they refuse to claim child maintenance, which is £24·20, although one of the main thrusts of the Bill is to remove that. Therefore, the issue of good cause will no longer be a matter for parents with care.

The situation with regard to second families will not change. The Bill does not make any difference to how second families are treated; they will be treated in exactly the same way. Members talked about taking the size of families into account. Different percentage rates apply, depending on how many children are in a family. Therefore, the size of a family is taken into account. The percentages are changed to take account of the move from gross income to net income. No one will be worse off or have more money deducted from them by moving from gross income to net income.

Those were all the points that I picked up on. I am not sure whether there are any others.

Ms Ní Chuilín:
Will there be more housing costs?

Ms Sick:
There may well be. However, I cannot say — off the top of my head — how exactly those costs will be calculated; I will need to look at it. I will come back to the Committee with that information.

Mr Brady:
Members all agree with the thrust of the Bill. However, much of it is aspirational. You have said that the Bill will give people the opportunity to come to voluntary agreements. My experience has been that if people do not come to an agreement when it is enforced, they will hardly be likely to come to a voluntary agreement. I would like more detail on how the Bill will impact on child poverty, and how may people will be enriched by it by having more money on a weekly or monthly basis.

I have been dealing with another difficulty since 1993, when child support was introduced. Logically, there is already a breach of parity; England is setting up a new agency because the first one did not work, but here, it is being taken in under the Social Security Agency. In a sense, that has already happened — not necessarily through legislation but with the administration of how the legislation will be enforced.

The Minister for Social Development:
It is not a breach of financial parity, and that is important.

Mr Brady:
That depends on one’s take on it. However, I wanted to make that point. The vast majority of non-resident parents in my constituency live in the Twenty-six Counties, so how will the legislation be enforced? Most parents may have two passports, and they are outside this jurisdiction. That does not apply in England, Scotland or Wales. However, such issues have to be factored in. We cannot have a situation here that is entirely comparable to England, Scotland and Wales, and that must be looked at in a lot more detail. People go and live in Dundalk or Drogheda and use that address: they are outside the jurisdiction and the law cannot be enforced, and that has happened from day one — and will continue to happen.

The Minister for Social Development:
As you will appreciate, there are several issues involved in that matter. First, when Sir David Henshaw carried out a review into the operation of the Child Support Agency, his recommendations gave rise to measures that are set out in the Child Maintenance Bill. There were also issues about the need to reform the Child Support Agency, which have not been working well. The Committee conveyed those concerns to me, although I was aware of them already. There was an option to put the agency out to a next-step agency — an arm’s-length approach, as has happened in GB — or bring it into the Department. I brought it into the Department, and I do not see that as a breach of parity; that is not a parity issue.

Secondly, the desire of the legislation is to make procedures simpler, to improve the performance of the agency — albeit now within the Department — and to ensure that money reaches the children who need it, thereby addressing child poverty. Various studies have been carried out in parallel with the Bill, including a study carried out by the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister into the issue of child poverty, which will raise certain issues. I am also doing some work on the subject, because we must also take on board the fact that we are working in changed financial circumstances, with higher food, fuel and power bills. I heard recently about a rise in taxi fares, and it was announced yesterday that there will be a hike in electricity prices.

All those increases must be factored into future studies to illustrate the impact on the wider community.

I will ask Margaret to deal with the matter of people who live in the South of Ireland.

Ms Sisk:
When Mr Brady raised that issue the last time that John and I were here, we explained that the courts will have to deal with parents who live in the Irish Republic, because the Department has no jurisdiction there. I accept that the new legislation cannot be enforced on those parents, but such cases must be pursued through the courts.

Mr J O’Neill:
An arrangement named REMO (reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders) operates throughout the various court jurisdictions in the EU. Therefore, a case can be made for the Court Service here to approach the parallel body in the South to recoup the money. However, that system is based on the courts rather than on child support.

The Chairperson:
On how many occasions does that occur, Mr O’Neill?

Mr J O’Neill:
We can check with the Court Service whether any data on that exists.

The Chairperson:
Without getting into precise numbers, is it a regular or unusual occurrence?

Mr Brady:
I have never come across it.

The Chairperson:
Neither have I.

Mr J O’Neill:
The reciprocal arrangement is not only between Northern Ireland and the Republic, but between the UK and France, or to whatever country an individual moves, provided it is in the EU.

The Chairperson:
Can you provide the Committee with figures?

Mr J O’Neill:
We will try to find out from the Court Service what figures are available.

The Minister for Social Development:
In this instance, the Court Service has jurisdiction. Furthermore, I am soon due to meet the new Minister for Social and Family Affairs in the South of Ireland, Mary Hanafin. Although I fully appreciate that it is a matter for the Court Service, I will highlight the general issue to her, as I did to her predecessor.

Mr F McCann:
I thank the Minister and her officials for this morning’s presentation. Carál asked whether the housing allowance will be taken into consideration, and you are right that over the past months, and particularly the past week, we have heard about serious increases in the cost of food, travel, oil and other household expenses. I have heard it said that it may be 10 years before the price of oil is reduced. Are the increases in the cost of living taken into consideration when people are working out their expenses?

As I was reading the Bill, a couple of issues jumped out at me. I am having difficulty finding out how search powers, curfew orders and restrictions on travel documents will work in practice and what they mean to the individual. Do they have an impact on the human rights of the individual?

Ms Sisk:
We carried out a human rights screening exercise, and we are happy that the enforcement powers are reasonable and proportionate, as confirmed the by the Department’s solicitor. However, the powers will be used only when non-resident parents refuse to pay the money that they owe and it is clear that they can afford to do so. The Department will have to take the person to court, and the court will decide whether to apply the penalties in such cases.

Mr F McCann:
Can we possibly see a copy of the response from the Human Rights Commission?

Ms Ní Chuilín:
Perhaps we could see the result of the screening exercise.

Ms Sisk:
I will check whether we can release that document to the Committee.

The Chairperson:
Was the response from the Human Rights Commission received during the consultation period?

Ms Sisk:
No; the Departmental Solicitor cleared the enforcement powers.

Mr F McCann:
Was there not any human rights screening?

Ms Sisk:
Yes; there was, but the departmental solicitor cleared the powers of having any effect on human rights that is not proportionate and reasonable.

Mr F McCann:
Could we see that document?

The Minister for Social Development:
We will look into that and get back to the Committee about it.

The Chairperson:
If you can release that, please follow through.

The Minister for Social Development:
The important point, and my response to Mr McCann, is that all the child-maintenance enforcement proposals are designed to achieve compliance, rather than to impose a punishment. Our target, as Margaret has said, are those who will not pay but have the financial capacity to pay, as opposed to those who cannot pay and do not have the financial capacity.

The most important thing is to ensure that more money flows to children who need it. Everyone agrees with that point.

Mr F McCann:
No one will disagree with that, but it throws up many difficulties. Precedents have been set that may be used, in the near future, in respect of other people who may fall into debt to organisations, individuals or Government Departments.

What about court cases? Is there any time limit?

The Minister for Social Development:
There was an amendment to the legislation in GB, tabled by Lord McKenzie, the Minister with responsibility for the Child Support Agency. You might be aware of that, Chairman. It changed the wording of the Bill from “administrative procedures” to “court procedures”.

Ms Sisk:
Those procedures include the withdrawal of passports. It is for the court to decide for how long to apply the penalty. All those decisions will be made by courts, rather than civil servants.

Mr F McCann:
Does the same apply to searches?

Ms Sisk:
All decisions will be made by the court.

The Chairperson:
I am conscious of the time constraints, members.

Mr A Maginness:
I welcome the Minister and her submission. The proposal improves the position for children and forces the obligation on parents to pay maintenance to their children. It is therefore to be welcomed as an improvement.

The court already has power to imprison a person who does not comply. That is a much worse sanction than any other mentioned. I recall some of my clients going to prison, because of their failure to pay. However, courts do that because people wilfully refuse to comply with their legal obligations. It is important to put that into a proper context. The measures are proportionate and they are in place to defend the human rights of children. That is important.

The Chairperson:
What is your question, Alban? I hope that we are coming to it.

Mr A Maginness:
I am sorry. I felt it important to emphasise that vital point.

My other point is in relation to cross-border enforcement of judgements. There is general enforcement of judgements across all the jurisdictions of the European Union. I doubt that it is fully availed of, but it should be, and I urge the Minister to get the authorities, North and South, to put their heads together and ensure that that power is availed of.

Those are my comments.

The Minister for Social Development:
Mr Maginness has emphasised what I have said already. The measures are proportionate: we are defending the human rights of children and we want to ensure that more money goes to them I have no problem in talking to my counterpart in the South of Ireland to ensure that all enforcement measures are put in place. At the same time, I will meet the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the South of Ireland about liquor licensing. I am happy to raise matters of justice and enforcement at the same time. We must ensure that people do not get away without fulfilling their parental responsibilities to their children.

The Chairperson:
There are a greater number of migrant workers from other nations; therefore, there are more absent parents across the EU, not only in the Republic, but in other countries such as Poland or Latvia. Therefore, the issue must be raised beyond a North/South level.

The Minister for Social Development:
I have no problem with doing that. Those issues must be pursued through the normal channels in the European Union. No child should feel that they are being punished, nor should they have to do without and suffer as a result of poverty. That is the challenge for me as Minister and for the Committee.

The Chairperson:
You mentioned several times the issue of accelerated passage. This is the fifth or sixth time that the accelerated passage procedure has been used.

Mr J O’Neill:
This is the fourth time that the accelerated passage procedure will be used. The Pensions Bill is scheduled for the beginning of next year’s parliamentary session. Last week, the Prime Minister announced in Westminster that a further welfare reform Bill will be introduced in the next parliamentary session. Therefore, we assume that something similar will also be introduced here.

The Chairperson:
It is the generic issue that concerns the Committee, and it has been alluded to in some of the questions. Hopefully, it will not be long before the accelerated passage procedure becomes an exception rather than a rule.

The Minister for Social Development:
At our previous meeting a couple of weeks ago, I said that I wanted to ensure that members would be consulted on Green or White Papers on potential Westminster legislation, and that your views would be fully taken on board and would help to inform the outcome of that potential Westminster legislation. I use the word “potential”, because there is no guarantee that the legislation will be taken forward.

Mr J O’Neill:
A Green or White Paper on the welfare reform proposals will be published in the summer, so we will provide the Committee with a copy as soon as possible.

Mr Brady:
The court of summary jurisdiction may be available, but it has not been used. I have not come across it since 1993, and the Department has not availed itself of it. If the court of summary jurisdiction had been used, it would have sent out a clear message to people.

Mr J O’Neill:
The court of summary jurisdiction was not introduced in 1993, but it has been used since then.

Mr Brady:
It has not been used in my experience.

The Chairperson:
We will find out more information about whether it has been used, and then we can establish that beyond any doubt.

The Minister for Social Development:
Some of that information lies with the Court Service, but we will provide that information to the Committee.

The Chairperson:
I understand that. Thank you for your time.

The Minister for Social Development:
Thank you.

The Chairperson:
Does the Committee agree to support the Department’s request to the Assembly for accelerated passage?

Mr Brady:
The Minister has stated that there is more information to come. We will be making the decision on accelerated passage, but we do not have all of the detail.

The Chairperson:
I assume that the decision can be made next week?

The Committee Clerk:
It could be made next week when the Committee is due to discuss neighbourhood renewal partnerships. That meeting was due to be dedicated solely to that issue, but, if this matter is a priority, it could be slotted in, and we will see whether the Department can provide the information.

The Chairperson:
The only slight qualification is that we are assuming that all the necessary information that we request will be provided by next Thursday, to allow us to take the decision on whether we agree to accelerated passage. If the Committee agrees to defer that decision until next week and, for some reason, all of the information requested has not arrived, we still may be faced with the same issue next week as we are today.

Mr Brady:
That puts the onus on the Department to provide the information. The Committee will not be making the decision without information; if the Department wants accelerated passage, and has requested it, it is incumbent on the Department to provide information.

The Chairperson:
I agree with that, although I take the Minister’s point in relation to Court Service issues. That would be outside of her responsibility; she could ask, and request as a matter of urgency, information on the number of cases, for example, to which a number of us alluded. However, if she does not receive that information by next Wednesday, it would be impossible for her to provide it to the Committee by next Thursday, to allow us to take that decision. I do not want the Committee to face the same situation next Thursday, and not have the possibility of delaying its decision by another week to allow more information to be provided, without there being consequences. Those consequences will have to be spelled out.

Ms Ní Chuilín:
I fully appreciate the difficulty with those aspects that are totally related to the Court Service. Regardless of how one feels about aspects of legislation, it is not within our gift to decide how or when that information is provided. However, I resent the fact that, because of the nature of accelerated passage, and because of the very topic that we are discussing — an attempt to reduce child poverty through making absent parents accountable — it is almost as if a carrot is being dangled.

I also did not appreciate the inference that someone from OFMDFM was feeding me a line in order to raise it with the Minister; I totally resent that. If I have the ability to raise concerns about a scant EQIA, which were also raised by other Departments, that is just coincidence, and people are just going to have to live with that. However, there were questions raised in relation to information that needs to be provided; for example, on something as important as reducing child poverty, only two of possibly many NGOs fed into the examination of that issue. Ms Sisk mentioned the child poverty reduction targets; they are crucial to this matter, and they need to be fed back into the discussion, because they will be an important part of the Bill. It would be best to allow another week to attempt to get that information.

The Chairperson:
We will do that. If members are agreeable, we will communicate the concerns of the Committee to the Department, the Minister and her officials, and request to have all of that information by next Thursday. We will hope to have that information by the meeting next Thursday, and also to have an indication of the state of play if the Committee were to decide not to support the request for accelerated passage. We need that, because there is no point in everybody running for cover in two months time, when there is criticism that X, Y and Z are the consequences of the Committee not having agreed to accelerated passage. We need to know what will be the state of play before we take that decision.

The Committee Clerk:
I just want to clarify that the Committee does not make the decision on accelerated passage, it agrees whether or not to support accelerated passage on the Floor of the House. The information that we will request from the Department concerns what will be the state of play if the Assembly does not grant accelerated passage, rather than if the Committee does not.

The Chairperson:
However, the Committee, I presume, would take a position, and that is where we have to be clear. If the Committee decides to either support accelerated passage or not, that issue then becomes an issue for the Floor of the Assembly, after the Committee has taken a position.

Mr Burns:
As I understand it, the Executive have agreed to grant accelerated passage to the Bill. I accept that people may want more discussions about that, but the Bill will pass if the Committee agrees that it should receive accelerated passage. If it does not receive accelerated passage, does that leave people who want to receive child allowance at a disadvantage?

The Chairperson:
That is the information that I have said that the Committee requires ahead of its meeting next Thursday, rather than opening up another can of worms today. The Committee wants that information anyway — it is essential that we receive it. It will not put anybody’s nose out of joint to delay that for one week, until next Thursday.

At that stage, the Committee will hopefully have all of the information that the Minister can give us. Through the Clerk, we need to know what the consequences would be if this Committee decided not to support the Minister’s request for accelerated passage. Next Thursday, the Committee could have a clear picture of what its decision could mean.

Mr Brady:
Without being facetious, the Executive agreed to the Budget and the Programme for Government. The people who did not agree with those decisions made their views very clear. That is neither here nor there. For me, that was certainly a learning curve.

It is a case of being once bitten, twice shy. We were told that accelerated passage was needed for the Welfare Reform Bill. Then, when we tried to introduce amendments, we were castigated. I could keep using that word, because we should have apparently done that at the time. If accelerated passage is granted, it has to be given for the right reasons.

The Chairperson:
Are members content that the Committee defers its decision to next Thursday, when we will have the information and the consequences of whether we decide to proceed, or decide not to support the Minister’s request?

Members indicated assent.