| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Willetts (Havant): I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement and the White Paper. Both sides of the House agree that the CSA needs reform, just as both sides of the House supported the creation of the CSA in 1993, and the reforms that we introduced in 1995. The system that Ministers inherited is one that we all supported--including those who are sitting on the Treasury Bench. The trouble is that the problems in the CSA have continued--if anything, they have become worse.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the latest annual report from the chief child support officer shows a further decline in the number of correct maintenance assessments? Will he now give a cast-iron promise to the House that that trend of deteriorating performance will be reversed, and tell the House when that will happen? It has taken Ministers more than two years to reach this statement, and it is eight months since the deadline for consultation on their previous Green Paper. It has taken Ministers longer to reach a decision than it takes the Child Support Agency they criticise.
The Opposition accept the need for a simpler system, with better enforcement and less fancy arithmetic to calculate liability. We accept that that approach is the right one. However, we have three areas of concern about today's proposals. First, rough justice is the new buzz phrase, but how rough is the rough justice to be? How many liable parents will have their obligations reduced, and by how much? How many of the parents with care will have their entitlement to maintenance reduced, and by how much?
Specifically, will the Secretary of State confirm that he will no longer take account of the income of the parent with care? Does he not recognise that one of themost important grievances arising from the current arrangements is felt by those absent parents who have a lower income than the family with care? Is not one of the effects of his proposals to redistribute dramatically toward the more affluent families with care?
Instead of addressing that point about liabilities, I fear that the Secretary of State will change the subject and talk about enforcement. His spinners have been making a lot of the new criminal penalties for absent parents who do not pay maintenance. That is a snappy soundbite, but a stupid policy. Putting absent parents in prison makes it less likely that they will be able to earn any income, less likely that they will ever pay any maintenance, and less likely that they will have any access to their children.
The Government should make existing civil remedies work. After all, the Minister's colleagues in the legal Departments are boasting about their reforms of civil justice and new fast-track procedures, so why does henot practise some joined-up government, trust his Government's reforms of civil justice and use those
remedies effectively and energetically? Even if he does not trust his own colleagues, why does he not agree with the response to the consultation exercise of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux? It said:
Our third area of concern is Inland Revenue access to information. Let me quote to the right hon. Gentleman an assurance from his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), given when a clause of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that is designed to give the Revenue access to information was debated in Standing Committee. The Under-Secretary said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles):
Yes, the CSA needs reform. Yes, more money needs to go to children. Yes, we accept that the current arrangements are not working. However, we need to know more about who gains and who loses. We need to know why Ministers will not use civil remedies more effectively. We need assurances about Inland Revenue access to information. The principle of the CSA is absolutely right; what has gone wrong is the practice, and that is where further reform is needed. It is pity that it will take Ministers four years to do anything about it.
Mr. Darling:
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State. I believe that this is his first time out. I am grateful for his acknowledgement that I let him read the White Paper, although that is perfectly normal practice.
The hon. Gentleman expressed three concerns, but what struck me was that only towards the end of his remarks did he mention children. If there is rough justice in the present system, it is that 66 per cent. of children do not get everything that is due to them. The reforms that we are introducing today are designed to ensure that an assessment is not theoretical but realistic, and that the child sees the money to which he or she is entitled.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that we are not taking into account the income of the parent with care. I point out that 96 per cent. of parents with care have an income of less than £100 a week, so that will not be a widespread problem. We are ensuring that the formula, which takes into account the children in first and second families, is simple and fair. The more complex the system becomes--as more and more disregards and other considerations are brought in--the further we shall slip back into the mire that bogs down the CSA at present. If the hon. Gentleman
is saying that we ought to have more exceptions to the general simple formula, he must accept that every added complexity will mean that it will take more time and be more difficult to get money to the children.
The hon. Gentleman also complained about penalties. There is nothing wrong in saying that there ought to be a criminal sanction for people who lie to the CSA, misrepresent their circumstances and give the agency the run-around. Those people are not cheating the Government or the agency--they are cheating their children. In any decent, civilised society, people recognise that there ought to be a deterrent and, if necessary, punishment for those who have obligations to society or to their children but who, at the end of the day, after every stone has been turned and every difficulty has been addressed, still insist on trying to avoid their responsibilities.
Most of those who have to deal with CSA cases know that there are mothers who are trying to bring up their children and, in the same town, the father is driving around in his Porsche, living the high life while his children are not being properly looked after. I make no apology whatsoever for taking the necessary action against the minority--I stress that they are a minority--of parents who insist on ducking their responsibilities.
I find it difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's complaint about us allowing access to the Inland Revenue in cases where people will not tell us how much they earn, or where we have good reason to believe that they are not telling us the truth. If we do not take action, the state will have to support the children of people who are perfectly capable of doing that themselves. The Conservatives used to believe that that was wrong, but they are more concerned about protecting the interests of people who want to hide their affairs from their own children than they are about the children themselves. I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's complaint. Using the access to the Inland Revenue is, of course, an action that we shall take when every other option has been exhausted, but I disagree with the Conservatives' proposition that we should not allow access to the Inland Revenue so that we can find out the truth about those matters.
"We are not convinced that it is the powers themselves that are deficient, but rather the way in which they are being exercised".
The Minister thrashes about with any old wheeze to give the impression of action. We are told that absent parents might lose their driving licence--presumably as part of the Deputy Prime Minister's attack on the motorist. Today, we read that they will lose their passport--presumably that is a desperate attempt to get them out of those queues at the passport offices. Such gimmicks are not the answer.
"the clause will be used as a last resort, after all attempts to get information from other sources have failed, to enable the CSA to check tax records in the interests of the children."--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27 April 1999; c. 1000.]
When did a last resort become a first resort? How is the Secretary of State's announcement today compatible with the assurance given by his colleague to the Standing Committee only a few months ago?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |