Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 167)
WEDNESDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 1999
MR MARTIN
BARNES AND
MS DJUNA
THURLEY
160. I was going to ask whether you have written
to the landlords at White Lion Street saying that you will not
be needed any more. Do you believe that these changes will make
a significant contribution to that strategy?
(Mr Barnes) I think it does because firstly it is
a step forward, it shows a slightly different attitude on the
part of the Treasury perhaps in terms of its approach to child
support. If it means that a parent on income support is going
to get an extra £10 a week, we have called for £15,
we have also called for it to be brought forward because we do
not believe that would complicate this issue of simplification,
if it is a positive let us bring it forward. I think it would
have benefits to the workings of the scheme if that were done.
Also with this whole pressure of this target of reducing child
poverty, if it is going to make a difference why not do it now?
The total disregard for Working Families Tax Credit is positive,
that is a positive step forward. Obviously the point we have made
is that you cannot end child poverty through child maintenance
alone, it has to be as part of a package of the adequacy of benefit
support, Welfare to Work, etc., etc. In the context of child support
it is a positive step forward.
Mr Leigh
161. You asked for the maintenance disregard
to be increased to £15 a week, how much will that cost?
(Mr Barnes) I do not know actually.[51]
162. Why do you say these things if you do not
know how much they are going to cost?
(Ms Thurley) I think the reason that
we said it was because of the current shortfall on income support
for a couple with two children. We were comparing the income support
levels with the low cost but acceptable budget set up by the Family
Budget Unit. Income support for a couple with two children under
11 is currently £20 short of that budget, so £15 goes
that much further towards reaching that level.
(Mr Barnes) David Willetts has recently said that
he feels the Government should be doing more for poorer families.
These are families on income support, so I think an extra £5
a week would make a difference. It would be quite compatible with
what David Willetts is currently saying in terms of the Government
strategy.
163. It is all very well to argue that we should
solve this problem by more money coming from the general taxpayer,
most of whom are on relatively modest incomes and cannot afford
to pay any more, but would it not be better to put more emphasis
on making the absent parents who pay nothing pay more?
(Mr Barnes) We have generally supported the approach
to ensure that there is more compliance through the simple formula.
Obviously we have raised the concerns about extending the sanctions
given the fact that sanctions are fairly strong already but probably
not being used enough. Yes, it is important that there is maximum
compliance, we have supported that.
164. The National Council for One Parent Families
remind us that if a child spends at least 52 nights a year with
the non-resident parent it is proposed that liability be reduced
by one-seventh of the weekly rate for each night spent. I think
this is a very good idea because we should try and have a direct
relationship between what the absent parent pays and how much
time he spends with his children. I think it is a very good idea.
Do you have any comment on that?
(Ms Thurley) The reduction by one-seventh is actually
in the White Paper, is it not?
165. Yes.
(Ms Thurley) We do not have as strong views on this
issue as the National Council for One Parents. We do not have
a particular problem with the proposals as laid out in the White
Paper.
166. Of course it is going to be argued, is
it not, that we are often dealing with very poor people and what
is going to happen is that if the rate is being reduced in this
way there is going to be an impact on poverty, is there not? That
is inevitable.
(Mr Barnes) As Djuna says it is in the White Paper
and we do not have any problems with the recommendation. Precisely
where we are coming from is the impact on poorer families, whether
it is those with care or those who are non-resident. That is why
the balance is so important. The issue of the disregards, as I
say, is quite a key part this in proposal.
(Ms Thurley) Where I think I do agree with what the
National Council for One Parent Families is saying is on the difficulties
that the benefits system creates for non-resident parents. You
get no personal allowance for the child in your income support,
you get no child benefit, you get no housing benefit allowance.
If you are also having £5 deducted from your income support
then it does make shared care very difficult and I do think it
needs looking at in the round.
Dr Naysmith
167. The Minister told us yesterday that when
whatever system it is is introduced, it will run side by side
with the existing system for a while and new claimants will go
on to the new system and old claimants will be fed in over a period
as yet unspecified. Now, clearly that could give rise to all sorts
of problems with people being treated in two different systems
as well as not knowing whether we can actually cope with running
two different systems at the same time. I know it is not mentioned
in your recent submission, but do you have any views on this given
all the experience you have of people contacting you?
(Mr Barnes) Clearly I think it is right to be concerned
about that transitional period because history shows us that when
there is a change in the system or a move from one to another,
the difficulties are nearly always underestimated. Firstly, I
would always raise the question about the ability of IT to deliver
and that seems to be where it often goes wrong, but I think it
is really this question of getting a balance. I heard the comments
made earlier about the possible delay in introduction, although
the timescale is already very lengthy—we are talking about
a couple of years hence—and if that is the case, then we
would like to see, say, the disregard brought forward because
I really do not think there is any need to wait other than the
costings issue and what the Treasury is prepared to fund before
that comes forward. This is why I think probably the issue of
trials and testing is so crucial and there is no way, I think,
that the Government is prepared to see the Agency get it wrong
this time. I think the Agency probably not quite has a blank cheque,
but the Government will not let this fail and it simply cannot
afford to do so and the lessons learned in the introduction of
the jobseekers' allowance, if it shows there is a need for more
time, they are prepared to do it and the jobseekers' allowance
was delayed by six months because of the concerns about computers
coming in, so we need to learn from history.
Chairman: Thank you both very much. That has
been very useful and extremely helpful. Thanks for the submission
and hopefully we will be able to maintain the dialogue as the
debate continues.
51 See Ev p 55. Back
| 
