House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Apr 1993

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry) : With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to respond to the debate.

On the Order Paper, the debate is entitled "affordability of housing". The question what is the right price level for social housing is not an easy one. This is not a simple matter of deciding that it would be nice if accommodation

Column 707

were cheaper, and legislating to that end. Indeed, it could be argued that many of the current inequalities in the housing market have their roots in decisions taken on past occasions, based on precisely that sort of ill-considered wishful thinking.

One of the reasons why this country has one of the smallest private rented sectors in Europe is that the artificial rent controls effectively destroyed the private rented sector for the decades after the first world war.

Mr. Battle rose --

Mr. Baldry : I have hardly started my speech before the hon. Gentleman invites me to give way, but I am happy to do so.

Mr. Battle : I am grateful, but it is one of the big myths that Government keep running, and it ought to be nailed as a lie. The reason why the rented sector declined is that landlords sold the houses to put the money in the bank. It was cheaper, when interest rates were high, to sell the property and accumulate money that way. Was not the cause of the gentrification of inner cities and the decline of rented housing the fact that the amount of housing to buy went up ?

Mr. Baldry : That is a total canard, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The private sector declined from the first world war onwards because of rent controls which artificially kept down the return that landlords were able to make upon their investment--rent controls that were maintained by successive Labour Governments, which effectively destroyed the private rented sector. It has only been since the 1988 housing legislation, when we freed rents to proper market levels, that we have begun to see, for the first time for many decades, a private rented sector in which new tenancies equal those that are falling in.

Mr. Raynsford rose --

Mr. Baldry : No. I have listened to a lot from the hon. Gentlemen. They have both made very long speeches. They have both made a lot of points to which they want me to respond. It is a complex subject, and one on which I wish to respond in my own time and in my own way. To begin with, housing is not, like some other goods such as education or health services, predominantly a public sector matter. Most households prefer to own their own homes, and a major element of our housing policies has been focused on enabling them to do so. The right to buy for council housing, and now our rents-to-mortgages proposals ; cash incentive schemes to enable public sector tenants to move out into owner-occupation ; shared ownership schemes --these are all important parts of our commitment to empower those who want to own their own homes to do just that. With affordability levels high, with mortgage rates at their lowest for 25 years, and with some impressive fixed rate mortgage deals on offer, now is an excellent time for those thinking about buying into the market to do so. Not every household will want, or be able to afford,

owner-occupation, so our policies also address the demand for rented accommodation ; but here as well we must remember that housing for rent is not a public sector monopoly ; although the private rented sector has been a declining force in housing provision throughout the century, there is now evidence of an increase in private lettings in response to the measures we have taken to

Column 708

encourage the private rented sector. Housing benefit means that tenants who rent from private owners are not left on their own if they face difficulty in meeting their housing costs.

Therefore, the question of affordability in the social housing sector is not something which can be treated in isolation. Not only do we need to remember the interaction with the other housing sectors ; we also need to consider what the nation as a whole can afford to spend on housing programmes ; to make sure that what we can afford is targeted as closely as possible on those in the greatest need ; and to use it as efficiently as possible.

In the local authority sector, we have intentionally been moving towards a more market-based system of rents, where the rent the authority charges reflects the value of a letting. Instead of subsidising the bricks and mortar of the property itself, we have been subsidising the people who matter--individual tenants. That approach means that where local authority tenants can afford to pay more towards their housing costs, they do so.

In the past, there has been a great deal of emphasis on keeping down gross rents. However, that policy has produced some pretty odd results. In the local authority sector, rents have tended to reflect historic investment costs and arbitrary decisions on rent levels by local authorities rather than the intrinsic value of the housing on offer.

Thus, it has been common for local authorities to charge a high rent for a virtually uninhabitable system-built flat simply because the investment was recent and the debt charges high, and a much lower rent for a pleasant, traditional older house built some time ago. It is no wonder that some estates have been hard to let. As well as relative rents being out of line with reality, the average level of all gross local authority rents had reached an artifically low level by the time we took office in 1979, so we have been pursuing a policy of gradually increasing local authority rents in real terms. Ring-fencing the housing revenue account has put an end to arbitrary subsidies to or from the ratepayer or council tax payer, and by shifting subsidy from beed to be protected from too steep a withdrawal of the subsidy to their rents. In order to move towards a more rational pattern of local authority rents, we have been targeting our guideline rent increases according to the capital value of different local authority housing stocks, so the authorities with the most valuable stocks are those that increase their rents the most.

We have also encouraged all authorities to move towards a more rational pattern of rent among their different properties--a pattern that reflects the value rather than the cost of different local authority homes. A tenant who is unable to meet the full cost of the rent gets means-related help from the housing benefit system. Some 70 per cent. of local authority rent increases are met by rent rebates. Since 1989, local authorities have faced the discipline of the ring-fenced housing revenue account. It increases the focus on the delivery of housing management services, which are properly chargeable to rents. It means that authorities cannot bail out an inefficient housing operation at the expense of the local council tax payer, as too many

Column 709

did in the past. The need to make sure that rental income, together with the support we provide through the housing revenue account subsidy, meet outgoings provides a vital check. I make no apology for moving the subsidy away from the buildings and towards the people who live in them ; and away from the suppliers and towards their customers. That is a crucial step towards a more efficient local authority housing sector. As local authorities grow into their role as enablers, and as the pressures of compulsory competitive tendering for housing management improve performance, I hope to see further improvements over the coming years.

While local authorities account for the bulk of the existing social rented sector, they are, of course, no longer the main suppliers of new social housing for rent. That role has been taken on by the housing associations, which have been able to make use of private finance to ensure that the funds they receive from the Government through the Housing Corporation are translated into the maximum number of good-quality homes.

Since 1988, public spending on housing association grant has been supplemented by more than £2 billion of private sector finance--a clear gain to housing output at a time of public spending restraint. That large sum of private finance has enabled a great deal of additional investment in social housing to take place. The average housing association grant rate for this year is 72 per cent. Private finance enables a third more homes to be built with the available public money than would otherwise be so. For 1993-94, grant rates have been reduced, without any impact on rents, because of competititive prices and low interest rates.

Our manifesto promised 153,000 new homes to rent over a period of three years. I am confident that we shall do much better than that, partly because of the housing market package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in November. I shall outline the outstanding success of that package in a moment. The private funding that housing associations can raise, however, also makes a vital contribution. The reductions achieved this year through lower interest rates and competitive prices have enabled us to reduce the rate of housing association grant from 72 to 67 per cent. without any significant impact on the affordability of the rents implied by those grant rates. That has improved output--an extra 3,300 new homes provided this year as a result of the increase in private sector funds levered in.

We must strike a balance between rent levels and the number of homes provided. There is no magic wand that we can wave to make it possible to provide decent homes more cheaply. If we choose to provide subsidy at a higher level, we must forgo the extra output, which, I am sure that hon. Members would agree, is badly wanted by those in unsatisfactory accommodation. [Interruption.]

As with local authority tenants, it is only those on incomes high enough to be outside the housing benefit system who will face the full impact of higher rents. It is, of course, important that they do not face unfair rises or increases that are too steep. Where resources are available to tackle housing need, it must be right that we increasingly move towards directing them, through the

Column 710

housing benefit system for poorer tenants, at those who have the greatest need, and make new homes available to those who are not satisfactorily housed.

Housing associations have been able to take advantage of low interest rates and low building costs to build more homes and house more people. Opposition Members will hear concerns about affordability from housing associations--as I frequently do. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to the lobbying that housing associations have been carrying out in recent days. What is most significant and at the crux of the debate--although housing associations have not made it clear in their various representations--is that this year, at a time when those associations have been expressing concern about affordability and the housing association grant rate, those self-same associations have put forward more than four and a half times the number of schemes that can be supported by the resources available for this year. At those grant rates, their bids have been four and a half times the amount of the money available. That clearly suggests that, whatever concerns they may express in public, housing associations have confidence in their ability to make use of the resources available at those grant rates and to achieve the higher outputs that we have sought.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) argued that 67 per cent. was the minimum grant rate that it was possible to sustain. I simply invite him to explain how, when housing associations are bidding at levels of four and a half times the money available through existing grant rates, one can possibly justify saying that 67 per cent. is the absolute minimum for housing association grant.

Mr. Raynsford : Will the Minister answer the following question, which will help him to resolve the question that he has put to me? Has the Housing Corporation--which, as he knows, recommends to Ministers the appropriate grant rate for housing

associations--recommended the reduction of grant rates from 72 to 67 per cent? If it did not, the Minister will have to explain to the House why he and his colleagues ignored the advice of the Housing Corporation, which was concerned about the affordability problems that were being caused by reducing grant rates.

Mr. Baldry : Before I answer that question, the Official Report will show that the hon. Gentleman completely ducked and evaded the question that I asked him, which is the core question. I will answer his question about the advice from the Housing Corporation as it raises the issue contained in his speech--and about which he has been muttering sotto voce ever since-- about whether we would contemplate increasing the housing association grant rate.

We have repeatedly made it clear that, year on year, we make no final decisions about the grant rate until we have all the evidence and advice, which obviously includes advice that we receive from the Housing Corporation. This year, I suspect that it will also include the advice that may be offered by the Select Committee on the Environment, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member and which is currently conducting a study into the Housing Corporation and its work.

We have made no shadow of a secret of the fact that our objective is to increase the proportion of private financing put into new schemes in future by reducing grant rates to 60 per cent. in 1994-95, in line with the wider initiatives to expand the role of private finance announced in the autumn statement. But final decisions will be taken only

Column 711

when we have assessed the likely impact on housing associations' ability to raise the private finance necessary. Those decisions are taken year on year, and they will be taken against the background of that available information. Within that context, the Housing Corporation's advice will always be listened to carefully, as it was last year, but we will also bear in mind the need to make sure that the resources available go, as far as possible, towards helping those who need a home.

With a finite amount of capital for investment, we have to examine the trade-off between how much we can do and how much we ask tenants to pay for it. At whatever level of capital spending, we are forced to choose between building fewer homes with lower rents or more homes with higher rents. Some large numbers are involved in that trade-off. Quite small reductions in the subsidy that we pay to suppliers of housing association homes, in the case of new housing, can have a major impact on output.

This year's reductions in average housing association grant level by just 5 per cent. will enable an extra 3,300 homes to be built. In that case, rents will not have to rise, because the grant rate reductions have been made possible by cost savings. If we had followed the policies advocated by the Opposition, those extra houses would never have been built.

Recently, there have been some encouraging signs emerging from the statistics of families accepted as homeless by local authorities. The number of homelessness acceptances in 1992 was 2 per cent. less than in the previous year--the first year-on-year reduction. The signs on the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation are even more encouraging, with only 7,500 households housed there by local authorities, compared with more than 12,000 a year ago, and that is a drop of 38 per cent. We hope that, as the new homes made available through the housing market passage come on stream, the figures will continue their current hopeful trends.

I am happy to be able to tell the House that the housing market package has exceeded our expectations, and I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate all those who have been involved on the work they have done. Around 18,000 homes for rent will be made available in England, well exceeding the target of 16,000 ; grants to local authority and housing association tenants will enable some 3, 500 households to move into the owner-occupied sector, freeing their current homes for those in need.

The 80 housing associations involved deserve great credit for their achievement. What they had to undertake was not inconsiderable within the time scale, and purchases have been made right across the country in almost all local authority areas, making a vital contribution towards meeting housing need, and often bringing on significant numbers of new houses for rent within particular areas.

However, we shall never allow ourselves to become complacent. Homelessness is still a significant problem, which demands tough decisions on how we use the resources at our disposal. The families who are still in unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and

Column 712

who need a home of their own to give them a chance to bring up their children in the way they would want, will not thank us if we allow concern for existing tenants who are already comfortably housed, and who can afford to pay a little more towards the cost of their housing, to dominate our thinking at the expense of building new homes.

It is not just those who are unsatisfactorily housed in temporary accommodation who should be at the front of our minds. We must also remember the needs of those who have no home at all. Our rough sleepers initiative has made a significant impact on the problem of rough sleeping in central London. We have spent over £96 million. That money will provide nearly 1,000 hostel bedspaces, 700 places in flats and houses leased from the private sector, and more than 2,000 places in permanent move-on accommodation.

The hon. Member for Leeds, West made various assertions alleging that those who had been housed in rough weather shelters had not been provided with accommodation when they left. His figures are badly wrong. Only about 10 people were refused further accommodation, but I do not intend to have a spat about that at this early hour in the morning. I will arrange to have the information that we have made available in the Official Report so that it can be seen on the record, and there can be no doubt of the success of those involved in those schemes.

These measures have been having success. Independent research suggests that the number of people sleeping rough in central London has more than halved from its level of three years ago. We need to do what we can to ensure that the figures continue to reduce, and it is vital that all the agencies concerned with rough sleepers co-operate to achieve that end. At Lincoln's Inn fields, for example, Camden council, the Government, and voluntary organisations have co-operated to ensure that everybody formerly living there was offered alternative accommodation.

Tackling rough sleeping is not a simple task. It requires close co- ordination between central Government and local government, housing associations, and voluntary groups, to ensure that the needs of those sleeping rough are tackled in the round, and to make sure that rough sleepers have the opportunity to start a new life with more secure housing. The work of the rough sleepers initiative is not just the work of central Government ; it depends on all the agencies involved working together with those who need shelter to find the right solutions.

I have talked about the needs of those who are without a proper permanent home to emphasise that, when we talk about affordability, we need to remember the purpose of our housing policy. It is to ensure that a decent home is in reach of every family. That is not wishful thinking--it is a substantial commitment--but it involves hard choices. It requires us to make sure that the resources that we can afford as a nation are targeted as closely as possible on the real problems, and on those in greatest need, and we are determined to do that.

Column 713

Child Support Agency

6.45 am

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : I am pleased to have secured a debate on the operational guidelines for the Child Support Agency. The agency will come into operation on 5 April and I have already heard advertisements for it on the radio which have a background of reassuring, soft-soap music that is intended to assure the public that it will be of assistance to them. The adverts hide, however, the operation of a potentially vicious piece of legislation, especially for many of the women whom it is intended to help. I think that it will help many women to obtain maintenance payments from the father of their child and it will also help some fathers. At the same time, it is potentially vicious for some women. I shall set out the reasons for that when I refer to the operational guidelines.

The Child Support Act 1991 passed through the House without the detailed scrutiny that such a measure should have received. That was probably because it passed through this place shortly before the general election. It was the strategy of the then leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), not to make matters such as child support issues in the election campaign. He decided to concentrate on the main areas of difference between the parties, such as unemployment and the national health service, and to avoid other arguments. In some instances it was felt that the Labour party would have problems in defending itself and in others it was considered that the issues could be distorted. We know, however, that my right hon. Friend did not concentrate entirely on unemployment and the NHS and that he introduced proportional representation at the end of the campaign, but that is history. It was the tactic not to make the Child Support Bill an issue.

The principle that a father should pay for his child is generally accepted. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. It is only unfortunate that the details behind the principle were not examined in detail. For example, the Treasury will be the main benefactor when the agency comes into operation. We know that 70 per cent. of all single mothers are on income support. Every extra penny that they obtain through the agency will go to the Treasury. The guidelines were not issued at the time that the Bill passed through the House, so the intimidation aspect was not given proper consideration. Nor were the family poverty consequences of the benefit penalties considered. If a woman is deemed not to have co-operated, she can lose £8.80 per week from her income support for six months and a further £4.40 per week for the next 12 months. That can push a woman and her family below the poverty line, so both her welfare and that of her child or children may be jeopardised. The House did not give the Bill the scrutiny that it deserved. There is no advantage to pursuing a maintenance claim for the majority of the 70 per cent. of single mothers on income support because any maintenance would be set off against their income support. Many of those women would not receive an extra penny, yet they would confront a panoply of threats and risks. The operational guidelines will discourage genuine income claims from many women. Intimidation by DSS or Child Support Agency officers, however well they have been trained, will inevitably occur. The woman could be "locked up" in a DSS office, perhaps

Column 714

with her child, until she gives the required information. Under the guidelines, she can be pursued at her home or at work until she provides that information. She may be at home and without any support while the interview is conducted. She may be asked intimate questions about her sex life that she does not want to answer. She may be told that she has no good reason for refusing to give information, even if she fears that to do so might have violent consequences for her and her children. She can also be threatened with the benefit cuts to which I referred earlier. Women in that situation must take on the new role of informers to the DSS part of the police state that is being established in that respect.

The message to women with children on benefits is that they cannot be independent--they must disclose information about themselves and about the father of their children, or they will lose a substantial proportion of their benefit.

The guidelines place a woman and her child or children at personal risk. The Child Support Agency leaves women in the lurch and accepts no responsibilty for the consequences of a woman disclosing information that the agency requires. Under the application of the "Requirement to Co- operate Policy Guidelines", which were recently published, the parent with care--PWC--must show good cause for refusing to co-operate, or she will lose benefit. Even if she fears that making such a disclosure is against her own best interests, she must do so. The guidelines give many examples of women being forced to disclose.

The beginning of the guidelines refers to a parent not having to give the information if she will suffer "harm or undue distress" as a result. That seems reasonable, but no technical definition of harm or undue distress is given : a good deal of discretion is given to the Child Support Agency and the DSS officer concerned.

The guidelines give the dictionary definition of harm

"to hurt, injure or damage"--

and of undue distress--

"excessive, unjustifiable or disproportionate strain, pressure, anguish or pain".

What the guidelines do not mention is the woman's fear of those experiences. That is an unsatisfactory start : the guidelines do not provide the necessary get-out for the woman who could become a victim if she discloses information about the father of her child. The guidelines give the DSS the opportunity to "doorstep" a woman at her home, perhaps to snoop on her--that has happened in the past--or even to knock on the door of her place of work. Paragraph 7 states : "several important points should be borne in mind"

I shall return to that phrase-- "the welfare of any children living with the PWC must be considered."

That is not a factor that would allow a woman not to disclose if the children's welfare would be damaged ; it need only be "borne in mind" by the DSS officer. In many ways it is a meaningless guideline and the DSS is likely to go ahead and cut the benefit anyway if it so chooses.

Paragraph 7 states that

"the PWC has a right to be believed unless what she says is inherently contradictory or implausible".

Implausible to whom? To the DSS officer. If he takes a hard line, the phrase "borne in mind" will not fit the bill.

There is another interesting aspect of paragraph 7, which states :

Column 715

"a reduced benefit direction is a strong sanction and will have an important impact on the income of a PWC".

In the context of paragraph 7, that is a threat : a DSS officer can say, "I am going to impose this sanction to make you give the information."

The paragraph also states that such reductions should not feature in any benefit savings statistics. That is disingenuous : over time, pressure could still be imposed for cutting benefits. The Government have published league tables in every other area ; they may do the same in this regard, thus putting pressure on DSS officers to cut benefit.

If the woman fails to complete and return the form she will be penalised. She will be deemed to have refused to co-operate. Paragraph 12 says that the Child Support Agency is supposed to help a woman who does not want to fill in the form--for reasons connected with her own safety--to obtain maintenance. That is a lie, for 70 per cent. of women will obtain no extra maintenance. That money goes to the Treasury. Women will see through that deception.

The paragraph also says that the absent parent will not be given the woman's address by the DSS officer, or even information about the town where she lives. That would be a welcome statement, if it were true. In most circumstances, however, the absent parent will know the woman's address. I have already asked why the Child Support Agency does not pick up the consequences of its actions. It does not offer any support to women who want to be rehoused if they have been forced to give this information. In the majority of cases, the absent parent is likely to know the address. The Child Support Agency does not help the woman to find safe housing when her address is known to the absent parent.

The paragraph goes on to state that the payment of maintenance does not give the absent parent the right to contact the child. What help is there with legal fees in those circumstances? The social fund does not make it a priority for the DSS to obtain an injunction against the absent parent to prevent him from gaining access, if that is what the woman wants. The Child Support Agency washes its hands, even though that is the consequence of what it forces upon women in a number of cases.

In addition, the paragraph states that the mother may want more flexibility in her life and that maintenance will help her to get it. In the majority of cases, that is a laughable statement. If a single mother is on income support, any maintenance is matched by a cut in her benefit. There is no flexibility for her. The extra money goes to the Treasury.

Paragraph 13 states that if a woman still refuses to co-operate, despite knowing of the help that she can obtain from the Child Support Agency, consideration will need to be given to whether the parent with care and/or any children living with her will be at risk of harm or undue distress. Again, that sounds all right, but it could be interpreted as the DSS saying to the woman, "You're not a proper mother. You haven't co-operated." My reading of that paragraph is that the kids could end up going into care. Co -operation with the Child Support Agency is regarded in the guidelines as more important than a woman's perception of the harm or damage that might be done to her or her children. That is not satisfactory.

According to paragraph 14 of the guidelines, there will be no definitive list of circumstances. Each case will be taken as it comes. That could lead to considerable

Column 716

inconsistency in deciding who must disclose and who does not have to disclose. A woman in one area may have to disclose, whereas a woman in exactly similar circumstances in another area may not. The guidelines deal also with the question of fear of violence. In this regard, there is the matter of the victims of sexual abuse, including rape and incest, resulting in the birth of a child. Pressure is put on the woman to name the father, even in those serious and fearful circumstances. Again the Child Support Agency washes its hands of the consequences, saying that they are a matter for the police and that it will not reveal the woman's address. That might well be ludicrous, for obvious reasons. In such circumstances the Child Support Agency makes absolutely no commitment to provide safe housing--another appalling fault. Paragraph 18 says that, although cases must be handled with extreme care, the information must be obtained. It must be obtained despite the woman's fears. Paragraph 19 provides that it is for the officer of the Child Support Agency, not for the woman, to determine whether there is a risk of harm or undue distress. What will be the level of an officer making such decisions? I expect that it is likely to be a relatively low level on the administrative scale, yet the officer will have enormous discretion in cases of considerable sensitivity. Paragraphs 20 to 24 relate to an absent parent who may want to see his child. Paragraph 20 deals with the fear that if the absent parent is required to pay maintenance he will demand to see the child, even if that is considered to be disruptive. The woman may wish to sever all links with the absent parent. These are very good reasons for not having to provide information, but it is not recognised in the guidelines. The guidelines state that maintenance is entirely separate from access. They also state that many parents with care and absent parents

"are known to link the two but it is important to stress that both the parents are responsible for maintaining the child subject to their financial circumstances."

In other words, it is admitted that parents link the two issues. That is right, because, in many cases, if the absent parent pays maintenance, he will demand access and thus come back into the woman's life, which could cause great problems for her. In any event, that will be her fear.

Once again, the Child Support Agency washes its hands of the matter. There is no comment on what happens if the woman's fears are realised and the father demands access. The guidelines contain no help for the woman or child whose lives might be disrupted. They take no account of the possible consequences of its demands.

Paragraph 22 states :

"A belief that an approach to an AP would result in demand for contact should not, on its own, normally be sufficient to enable a PWC to succeed in a claim that harm or undue distress"

would be caused. Again, the guidelines ride roughshod over the mother's fears. It is for the courts, or someone else, to take up the issue of access, but there is no help for the woman to get a court injunction. She will get nothing from the social fund in those circumstances. Often, it will be too late for her to go to court because the damage will have been done.

Paragraph 23 states :

"The PWC's wish to sever links with the AP should not normally provide grounds for her to succeed in a claim of harm or undue distress. There would normally need to be additional factors"

Column 717

for that to be the case. The wishes of the parent with care are being overridden by the DSS, with the result that she must make a disclosure.

Paragraph 24 states that PWCs

"may refuse to co-operate because it could cause them or their children undue distress to re-open any degree of contact after a lengthy period."

In that case, additional factors would be required for the case to be made. Paragraphs 22 to 24 reveal that the Child Support Agency could not care less about the children's best interests.

Paragraph 26 is interesting. It states :

"Sometimes, a PWC will wish to protect an AP because he is living in a stable relationship with someone else',

but the guidelines do not care about that. The paragraph continues :

"It would be unusual for this situation to justify a claim that co- operating would cause undue distress".

even though it might be a genuine reason for not making a disclosure. Why should a state agency disrupt a stable relationship in another family?

The same paragraph also states :

"The PWC should be reminded that the CSA will act as a buffer between her and the AP and that contact with the AP will be on a confidential basis."

A lot of women will not believe that that will necessarily happen. There is no guarantee of confidentiality, and the CSA is not liable if it breaks that guideline. That is not satisfactory.

Paragraph 27 is about parents who are juveniles--that is, parents who are either under 16 or, although over 16, are still classed as children for income support purposes. They do not have to disclose who the absent parent is, but they will have to do so as soon as they put in their own claim for income support, when they become 16 or when they leave school, so they could well face threats and intimidation along the lines of, "Disclose the parent now, because you will have to tell us when you are 16 anyway." So juvenile mothers could be put under great duress.

Parution. Paragraph 29 says :

"Other than in the most exceptional circumstances"--

which it does not explain--

"information obtained by the Child Support Agency will not be passed to the police."

Again, there is no guarantee of that. A lot of DSS information is passed to the police, via a telephone call from police officers to the DSS office, for example. Many parents will not believe that the information will not be passed on and that prosecution will not result.

Paragraph 30 says :

"it is unlikely that these circumstances"--

that is, the fear of being prosecuted--

"on their own, will be sufficient to justify a refusal to co-operate."

Again, people are being forced to co-operate on pain of losing their benefit.

Paragraph 31 is about artificial insemination. There has been extensive correspondence, in which the Minister has been involved, on that subject in The Guardian. I shall not go into detail about that, but perhaps the Minister will comment on it, because he remarks in his letters to the

Next Section

Home Page