Examination of Witnesses (Questions 368
- 380)
WEDNESDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 1999
MR ROGER
SMITH AND
MS NATALIE
CRONIN
Chairman
368. Can I welcome Roger Smith, who is the Social
Policy Manager, and Natalie Cronin, a Social Policy Officer of
the Children's Society. It might be helpful if you took a moment
to say a wee bit about the Society, how it works and what your
overall view of the White Paper proposals is by way of introduction.
(Mr Smith) The Children's Society is
a national voluntary child care organisation. We work in 90 communities
throughout England and Wales delivering a range of services to
support and help children and families, usually in situations
where they are disadvantaged in some way. We have got a very strong
practice base. Our concerns about child support partly arise through
that practice base where we see the impact of family break down
and discord on children and obviously our primary concern is about
the consequences for children. Hopefully we will bring a strong
child focus to today's presentation rather than be partisan. That
is one of the things we are going to try to avoid doing, being
partisan. Our view of child support and the mechanisms by which
it operates originates with the sudden announcement of the idea
some eight or nine years ago and everybody since then has been
running hard to keep up with first the initial legislation and
then its impact and then the ensuing attempts to reform and revise
it. I think it is fair to say that as an organisation we have
always had strong reservations about the impact because, as I
say, we are working with communities where we can anticipate some
of the likely consequences. Our concerns are that it has been
inherently divisive and undermines parents' ability to provide
for children in a context where they are already likely to be
in significant discord and at each other's throats—possibly
literally although hopefully not, but possibly. We have a long
history of interest in child support legislation and also some
experience through research of the way it impacts particularly
on children. In the context of the present reforms what we would
like to say is that given we are still uncomfortable with the
overarching framework, we recognise that Government is putting
forward what it believes are positive proposals to try to get
us all out of an extraordinary mess. For that reason we are reasonably
positive about a number of elements of the new proposals, particularly
things like the intention to introduce the disregard for parents
on income support. We believe that it is important that all children
benefit from maintenance wherever it is paid. The intention to
simplify the new system has made it more intelligible and understandable
on both sides. I say both sides, I am trying to avoid being partisan,
for both parents. Some of the provision it seems will bring a
greater degree of equity into payment and at least make that clearer
and make the underpinning reasons clearer. So we have got some
positive views on what the Government intends to do. We still
have reservations about other aspects such as the question of
guaranteed payments and also the way in which compulsion will
operate and in our view it will operate in a way which is potentially
discriminatory against certain groups; and the way in which reduced
benefit direction may operate and may again adversely affect the
children who are obviously living in low income families to start
with and will be adversely affected by a reduced level of income
in either household. Hopefully that gives a bit of an overview
of what we think about the new proposals, where we are positive
about them and where we still have some reservations.
369. That is very helpful, thank you very much.
You do not undertake any research of your own, you do not have
your own statistics or carry out any qualitative assessment of
the work that is done by the constituent parts of your organisation?
(Mr Smith) We did do some research at the time when
the legislation was first introduced with parents with care and
with children which I have to say is now inevitably dated and
it would be unfair to rely too much on that. Suffice it to say
there were a number of interesting findings. For example, all
the parents we saw believed in principle that it was right to
seek maintenance for children and that it was right that both
parents have a responsibility to maintain their children but also
most of the parents we spoke to could see reasons why in their
case there might need to be an exception. This is one of the problems,
that a principle which everybody agrees to in difficult individual
circumstances is often difficult to apply. Other things that we
found were that there was still some evidence of intimidation
or pressure being brought to bear—this was some years ago
and I think people are entitled to treat it with a bit of caution—both
by absent parents and by the Agency itself. We also found that
at that time there was limited evidence that it was doing anybody
any good, very little money was flowing through. There still remain
significant questions about the amount of money actually flowing
through to benefit children. Our starting point is the welfare
of children and that was what we found some years ago but I think
there are still significant questions about how many children
really are benefitting from the way the mechanism is operating.
370. Do you have a view about the fixed formula
of 15/20/25 per cent?
(Ms Cronin) I think we agree that a simple formula
which enables parents to be clear at the outset about what their
financial responsibility will be towards their children is helpful
and if it can be perceived as fair and generate co-operation and
get the whole thing going it is a good balance between rough justice
and fairness and clarity. I could go on to some of the more specific
things that would focus more particularly on children. One of
them is around a child maintenance premium. Obviously that is
something that we would welcome; it provides a tangible benefit
to children and it creates a real incentive to co-operate with
the Agency. What we are concerned about is the uncertainty around
the irregular payments, so that if payment is irregular, the parent
with care may get the £10 one week and not another week and
that will make it difficult to budget and will create administrative
complications for the CSA and for the Benefits Agency. Therefore,
we would like to see that £10 guaranteed so that the parent
could rely on it every week, to get that £10, and where the
money is paid, it is obviously recouped and where it is not recovered
from the non-resident parent, you are gaining the advantage of
greater co-operation because you are sure you are getting your
£10 for the parents with care. You are cutting down on the
whole administrative nightmare of having to give out £10
one week and not another week and all of that, so we think that
the £10 guarantee might be something to consider.
371. Is there any evidence available to you
that there are some non-resident parents who are actually struggling
and would struggle, even if the administrative system was made
more efficient, to pay the liabilities that are levied on them
currently or indeed in the White Paper proposals in the future
by way of child maintenance? We have had other witnesses saying
that there is not a pot of gold, if you like. Do you have anything
to contribute to that point of view?
(Mr Smith) What we are not able to do, I think, and
I should not claim that we are able to do it is to do the kind
of big number crunching that I think possibly other agencies and
possibly government agencies are able to do, but there are questions,
and clearly they come through in our work with families and parents,
some case work, where clearly in the past, for instance, perhaps
a father has felt that not every reasonable expense has been taken
into account and that, therefore, he is put into poverty or into
debt. An example I have recently dealt with is where someone,
in his view anyway, was forced to give up his house in order to
meet his responsibilities. What I do not want to do is to be too
backward-looking. We are looking at a new set of proposals and
I think you might want to ask some questions about whether or
not the list of additional costs which are to be allowed is sufficiently
wide. I am thinking of, and again it may be that the Government
would say that these are already provided for, but the costs of
travelling long distances routinely to see your children and the
costs of maintaining an additional bedroom, having a bigger house
in order that they can feel at home when they come to see you,
that kind of thing. In our opinion, they are reasonable costs
because, underlining that, you are trying to strengthen and support
family relationships and normal family relationships.
(Ms Cronin) Just to add to what Roger was saying,
there is a small point about non-resident parents on benefits
who are having deductions made from their benefits to repay Social
Fund loans or other deductions which are made at source from benefits.
We would like to see that child support is top of the priority
list because, as you know, there is a guaranteed level below which
deductions cannot be made and we would not want child support
not to be paid because it is protecting that income, although
obviously that income needs to be protected, so we would like
to see child support deductions come top of the list.
Mr Pond
372. Thinking of the costs carried by non-resident
parents, you suggest in your evidence that daytime care should
be recognised. One of the reasons you give for that is to suggest
that particularly parents on relatively low incomes will find
that more feasible than providing overnight accommodation for
children perhaps because they do not have accommodation which
is large enough. Can we put the two sides of that together because
if one of the advantages of daytime care is that the costs are
much lower, is there a case, therefore, for recognising it with
the reduction in assessment of maintenance going to the parent
with care? I cannot quite get my head round how those two statements
fit together.
(Ms Cronin) Some of the non-resident parents we have
spoken to talk about the higher costs of taking children out at
weekends and on holidays since the children, when the non-resident
parents get to take them out for the day, will not be in school,
but they will be doing activities and those will incur some costs
and it is to offset those costs that we would like to see daytime
care included.
373. It is not necessarily a cheaper option
for low-income parents?
(Ms Cronin) That is right, no.
374. Then, as you know, the Minister has said
that certainly as the Government is thinking at the moment, it
seems too complex to include daytime care in the formula. Basically
the complexity seems to rule it out. Do you think it is a very
important factor or is it something that you would like to see
in an ideal world?
(Mr Smith) I am not sure because I think either way
it seems that you will have to rely on the agreement of the parents
and this raises a whole other issue which I think is about trying
to promote a sense of agreement and mediate between parents rather
than forcing them to haggle over the last penny, but you are going
to have to rely on an agreed definition between parents for nighttime
arrangements, whether ten to six is all right and how long is
a night, so it does not seem from that point of view that there
is any real difference between nighttime care and daytime care
because at some point you are going to have to rely on some kind
of agreement between the parents as to what is an acceptable length
of time on which basis maintenance payments can be reduced. It
seems quite an important example because it is actually beginning
to reintroduce the principles of mediation and seeking agreement
and flexibility between the parents which we would like to see
permeate much more of the provision because one of the things
it seems to do by being rigid and arbitrary is force divisions
where there may not be divisions.
375. Could there be a danger though that the
parent with care would not have the kids on a Sunday because if
they do, they are losing part of their maintenance, especially
if they are not staying overnight and they say, "I have to
pay for seven nights' accommodation and you are just having them
on the Sunday and perhaps on the Saturday as well, so why should
I have my maintenance reduced?"
(Ms Cronin) You could argue that you are still having
to pay for the room for seven nights and whether one day is not
with them, that is not affected and your outgoings are the same,
so if the idea is to encourage as much contact as possible. From
the non-resident parents' point of view, it is just going to be
another thing that will facilitate that contact.
376. I was fascinated by a bracket in your submission
and I was not sure whether it had significance. It is in paragraph
6.1[19]
where you are talking about the collection of payment.
377. Let me just ask you the question straight
and you can tell me if the brackets were relevant or not because
you are talking about the heavy burden carried by the new system
of the current arrears and you are suggesting that there should
be some way of alleviating that. The sentence in this says, "It
may be reasonable to consider the possibility of applying an amnesty
or limiting the period during which it can be applied". Are
you still arguing for an amnesty?
(Mr Smith) It is a tentative suggestion because it
is one of those things which, in an ideal world and in some cases
and in the context where again you are looking at a fresh start
and trying to wipe away years of court cases and wrangle, might
be an ideal option and I am thinking about individual cases and
a number that I am aware of. What we have not got the capacity
to do is make any estimates about costs or feasibility or even
fairness because if you are taking away somebody's liability and
somebody knows that if they hold on long enough they can forget
it then you are introducing unfairness. What you have got is the
tension between an ideal solution in individual cases and the
fact that if you introduce that systematically it may well become
a further loophole which could be exploited. That was why it was
very tentative. Certainly something which would enable real pressures
and real unfairness to be dealt with in one way would be the ability
to review long-term cases. It may need some kind of tribunal mechanism
to resolve it. It would be very difficult to introduce the system
systematically and routinely and just say "forget it, we
will start again on 1 April 1999" because people would just
wait for that date and that is unfair in a different way.
378. Finally, on the debate we have had throughout
about the transition from the old system to the new system, I
think you are suggesting that we perhaps introduce some element
in the new system which immediately conjures up that stage, the
desire to switch from driving on the left to driving on the right
and deciding to do it on a transitional basis over a period of
time, but there are some dangers in that. Are you suggesting that
is a solution to the problem of transition or simply that some
elements of the new scheme are so good that you want them now
and do not want to wait for a couple of years?
(Mr Smith) Just as an example, the disregard, which
is something that we are very keen on, could be introduced and
does not need to wait. It may possibly need some primary legislation
but it is a very small change that needs to be put in place. That
could be done and would not necessarily have a destabilising effect
on the way the system operates.
Dr Naysmith
379. In your evidence you talk about second
families and you argue that maintenance should be divided equally
between children in first and second families and you are critical
of the option in the White Paper which favours the second family
over the first. The interesting point about that that I just want
to bring out is that we have had evidence already today from Families
Need Fathers that in fact it is the other way around, they believe
it is the other way around, they believe it favours first children.
How can you reconcile these two views?
(Ms Cronin) What we were not clear about was in the
White Paper it says that the new scheme would show a slight preference
to children in the first family and then it goes on to say that
there will be no first class or second class children when inevitably
the step family will be made up of children from the first family
and children who are in the second family.
380. Not inevitably.
(Ms Cronin) No, in the scenario which is used in the
White Paper example. We did not see how that could work because
you are going to have children from the first family who will
be treated slightly more preferably and children who will not
be, so there will be inequity within the family and the tension
that can cause should be avoided. We are aware of the fact that
the other system may give out more maintenance to first families
and obviously the more money that goes to the children the better
but I think that the prevailing principle should be equality between
the children.
Chairman: Thank you very much for your appearance,
it has been very helpful. Thank you.
19 See CS 38 not printed. Responses to the Green Paper
are available from the DSS. (Ms Cronin) It may not be relevant
if it relates to the Green Paper. Back
|
