Debated in Parliament on 4 Apr 2017.
Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many Maintenance Record Officers (MROs) have been appointed to date; (b) how many cases of potentially recalcitrant defaulters have they investigated to date; and (c) whether the outcome of MRO investigations has succeeded in identifying cases where maintenance payments have been extracted from defaulters who were able but unwilling to pay and, if so, what is the number of such cases to date.
Mdm Speaker, the Maintenance Record Officer, also known as the MRO, pilot project had been initiated to assist the Court in its fact-finding process by obtaining information on parties' financial circumstances and identifying recalcitrant defaulters who refuse to pay maintenance even though they are able to afford it. Where appropriate, the Court can then impose harsher penalties against such defaulters.
The MRO is not part of the Court process and is only deployed in cases directed by the judge. To date, we have appointed two MROs and they have assisted the Court in four cases, with one pending. The respondents in these cases were assessed to be unable to keep up with their maintenance obligations due to financial difficulties, rather than being unwilling to pay maintenance. For such cases, further to providing a report on its findings to the Court, the MRO will also refer parties to the relevant organisations for assistance.
The MRO pilot is a recent initiative, having just been implemented a couple of months ago. We will continue to review its effectiveness so that the MRO is able to assist more litigants.
I would like to assure this House that we will continue to work with relevant stakeholders to improve our efforts to assist those who face maintenance-related issues.
I thank the hon Parliamentary Secretary for his helpful reply. Just a few supplementary questions.
Firstly, just to clarify: is it the case that the MRO will only investigate a case if ordered to do so by the Court? I believe that is what you said, but just to confirm that that is the case.
Secondly, would the Ministry consider providing some avenue or mechanism for spouses to request for an investigation of the MRO without having to go through a Court process to get the Court to make that instruction in cases where they suspect that their ex-spouse may be able, but are unwilling to pay?
Thirdly, in cases where spouses are unable to locate their ex-spouse who is supposed to pay maintenance to them, what avenues or recourse do spouses who are owed maintenance, have in such cases, if the person is just not contactable?
I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. The answer to the first question is yes; it is only after the judge directs it and then the MRO will be activated.
With regard to the second and third questions, I think we need to look at a case, whether any divorce or even relationship issues, as a case where we want to see how we can facilitate relationships to still be connected for the sake of the children. It is important for us not to jump to conclusions too early. We want to give the opportunity for both parties to come to terms about how the maintenance can be agreed upon. At the same time, it is also important for us to ensure that sufficient avenue is given and we want to see how we can facilitate this. So, even after the MRO has been appointed, we realise that ex-couples or the parties involved are able to reach a common understanding, a common platform to see how maintenance can be paid or can be effected.
In essence, I want to assure the Member that we want to ensure that the connectivity is still there. We will try our best to get MRO available and work with other organisations to see how we can find the persons who do not pay maintenance.
As I have mentioned in my answer, it is still early days into the pilot programme. We will continue to review this to refine it in such a way that we will be able to have a positive effect on maintenance-related issues.
PAPERCUTS