Memorandum submitted by PCS—the
Public and Commercial Services Union (CS 19)
SUMMARY AND
PRINCIPAL POINTS
1. PCS, the Public and Commercial Services Union,
represents the overwhelming majority of staff employed by the
Child Support Agency.
2. PCS, and its predecessor Unions, have long
argued the need for fundamental reform of the child support legislation
. We therefore welcome the White Paper and broadly support its
proposals for a radically simpler maintenance formula. We are
pleased to see that many of the comments we made in our submission
to the green paper have been included in the white paper.
3. The current system has proved unworkable,
particularly the current maintenance formula. The formula is too
complicated to both administer and explain. This in turn has led
to delays in assessments and a widespread loss of confidence in
the whole system. A simpler formula will not just be easier to
understand, it will also be quicker and more efficient to administer.
4. PCS firmly believe any simplification of
the child support formula must see resources shift from assessment
to improving compliance and customer service, primarily through
an efficient and well resourced administration. We believe that
never again can inadequate staffing levels be allowed to contribute
to the delays and inefficiencies that have dogged the CSA since
its inception.
5. PCS strongly believes that the administration
of the reforms should remain with the CSA, as part of the Department
of Social Security. CSA staff have worked hard, with impossible
legislation and under unprecedented public criticism, to keep
the current system afloat. They have shown enormous commitment
and acquired invaluable experience along the way. It is essential
to ensure that these assets are not lost.
6. It would be simplistic to believe that all
the problems of the CSA can be solved by new and better legislation
in isolation. Experience has shown that any legislation must be
underwritten by a high quality IT system and proper resources.
The lack of both these in 1993 were major contributory factors
in CSA's disastrous start. We must not make the same mistake again.
7. The new formula promises lower average assessments
as well as a simpler formula. We believe these to be necessary
for CSA to acquire the confidence of the public and to persuade
non-resident parents (NRPs) that they should fully maintain their
children.
8. PCS particularly welcomes the child support
premium proposals. These measures will also contribute to the
system gaining acceptability with the public as they start to
see all children benefiting directly from the reforms.
9. While PCS broadly agrees with the Government's
proposals, we do have some points of difference regarding matters
of detail. These principally are in the areas of extending minimum
payments, the definition of income, retaining "good cause",
overly cautious transitional arrangements and the treatment of
certain exceptional cases. Details of our views can be found in
our main submission.
A NEW
CONTRACT FOR
WELFARE: CHILDREN'S
RIGHTS AND
PARENTS RESPONSIBILITIES:
A PCS RESPONSE
CHAPTER
ONE; A NEW
CONTRACT FOR
CHILD SUPPORT
Parents have a clear responsibility to provide
for their children so that they make the most of their lives.
p.1 Children's Rights and Parents Responsibilities
1. PCS fully supports the White Paper's central theme
that parents have a clear responsibility to provide for their
children. PCS agrees that it is a proper function of Government
to create and administer a system to ensure that the children
of parents who live apart get the care and financial support that
they need and to which they are entitled.
2. The history of the CSA has not been an easy
one and it has always been the view of PCS, and its predecessor
unions, that fundamental reform of the child support law was necessary
if the Agency was ever to become fair and efficient. PCS therefore
welcomes the Government's White Paper "Children's Rights
and Parent's Responsibilities" and many of its proposals.
3. PCS accepts the White Paper's conclusion
that the current CSA system has failed to deliver regular maintenance
and has become discredited with the public at large.
4. It is widely recognised that the principal
flaw in the existing child support law is the complexity of the
formula used to calculate maintenance liability. This has made
the process of assessing liability excessively time-consuming
for CSA staff and incomprehensible for CSA's customers. PCS therefore
welcomes the proposals to replace the current system with a simpler
and more deliverable system based on percentage rates of the non-resident
parent's income.
5. PCS particularly welcomes the proposals to
introduce a £10 maintenance premium for customers in receipt
of Income Support and to disregard child maintenance for recipients
of Working Families Tax Credit. This will not only directly benefit
the children, it should also go along way to dispelling the myth
that the CSA is no more than a Treasury Support Agency.
CHAPTER
TWO; FAIR
MAINTENANCE FOR
ALL CHILDREN
A simple and consistent system of percentage
rates will form the basis of maintenance liability for children.
p.9 Children's Rights and Parents Responsibilities
New Rates
6. PCS supports the proposals to replace the
formula with one based on percentage of NRP's income. The present
system produces relatively high assessments that are in itself
a disincentive for NRPs to pay. This problem is compounded by
it being almost impossible for a layman to understand how the
maintenance figure has been reached.
7. The proposed new formula will have the double
advantage of producing average lower assessments as well as assessments
that are easily understood. This will in turn encourage more NRPs
to pay their full liability and go a long way to ensuring that
the Agency's current problem of non-compliance is addressed.
8. At present a large amount of CSA's staff
time is spent collecting and adjudicating on information in order
that an assessment can be made. Once the assessment process is
simplified this will free up staff time to concentrate on what
should be their core task; ensuring maintenance is actually paid.
The lesson of the current scheme is that there is no point pouring
resources into telling someone how much to pay if that leaves
insufficient resources to ensure the person actually does pay.
9. PCS believe the proposed percentage rates
(liability) are broadly correct. We particularly welcome the link
between the amount payable and the number of children requiring
support. This will remove one of the worst anomalies of the current
system.
Balancing responsibilities to different families
10. PCS welcome the change proposed to the treatment
of second families. The proposal to reduce net income by a percentage
calculated according to the number of children in the second family
is fair to both parties and crucially recognises the rights of
the children of second families too. It is also correct that step-children
should be included.
Protection for the low paid and the effect of
the new rates on the level of maintenance
11. The reductions in liability for the low
paid are important and welcomed. But PCS does not agree with the
proposals to extend minimum payments to those on Income Support/Job
Seekers Allowance who are currently excluded and to those in receipt
of the other state benefits listed in Annex 2 of the White Paper.
12. In many cases the current levels of state
benefits are not sufficient to expect someone to support themselves
and pay maintenance. Increased hardship will inevitably result,
further driving people into poverty. This can only increase child
poverty and exacerbate the problems facing that family.
What counts as income?
13. The definition of income is a vital area
to be resolved. The white paper is correct that there is little
point in simplifying the maintenance formula if income is still
highly complex to define. In PCS members' experience income is
probably the principal cause of most reviews and appeals at present.
The reliance on income in the "relevant week" often
produces an accurate picture of average income, which commonsense
dictates should be the determining factor.
14. It is important that the new legislation's
definition of net income is less prescriptive than at present
and allows greater discretion for CSA staff to reach agreement
with NRPs regarding their income. An NRP who has agreed their
net income figure with CSA will surely be more likely to agree
to pay.
15. Regular overtime should be included as net
income along with bonuses and other work-related remuneration.
We can understand the reluctance to exclude unearned income, such
as savings and investments, but when the income from these sources
is substantial it should be included. Unearned income below a
certain figure (possibly £3,000 pa) could be ignored and
so staff time would not be wasted gathering information about
small amounts of income. The number of cases where there is significant
unearned income will be small, but it would be wrong to exclude
these from assessment.
16. Given the aim of the radically simpler formula
then it is right to exclude other items like pension contributions
and housing costs. Where there are genuinely exceptional reasons
to take other costs such as these into account, this can be done
through the appeal system.
Maximum assessment
17. PCS agrees with the abolition of the maximum
liability under the new scheme. It is correct to argue that children
should share in the wealth of their parents.
CHAPTER
THREE; MORE
HELP FOR
CHILDREN
Our reforms are for all children, but we recognise
that children in poorest families gain least from maintenance
under the current scheme. The new scheme will direct extra help
to these children.
p.17 Children's Rights and Parents Responsibilities
The child maintenance premium
18. PCS, like the Government, believe a key
aim of any child support system must be the alleviation of child
poverty. PCS therefore warmly welcomes the proposal to introduce
a premium for parents with care (PWC) on Income Support (or income
based Jobseeker's Allowance). It will also provide a major incentive
to NRP to comply with their responsibilities as they can see their
children benefit.
19. The premium will be a big selling point
for the new scheme to both PWCs who may be reluctant to use the
CSA and to NRPs who presently see all their maintenance go straight
to the Treasury. We believe the premium is the White Paper's single
most important and progressive proposal and will undoubtedly increase
the number of regular payers and the total amount of maintenance
paid. This will in turn of course reduce the benefit bill overall.
Tax Credits
20. The plans to ignore maintenance when calculating
entitlement to Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) are also welcome
for very similar reasons. PCS also welcomes the decision not to
make applying to the CSA a condition of receiving WFTC.
CHAPTER
FOUR; A NEW
SERVICE THAT
ENCOURAGES PARENTAL
RESPONSIBILITY
A new service that supports children and responsible
parents and acts promptly and effectively to tackle abuse and
lack of co-operation.
p.21 Children's Rights and Parents Responsibilities
Safeguarding child support
21. PCS supports the broad proposals in this
chapter aimed at ensuring the correct information is used to calculate
maintenance and that self-employment is not used as a means to
avoid payment. The CSA does need extra powers in this field. However
it would be wrong to assume that the problems of "disappearing"
NRPs and the undeclared income of the black economy can be solved
by just additional legislation. In addition to extra legislative
powers the CSA will also need resources to trace those who set
out deliberately to avoid the Agency and to enforce payment when
they are found. Such cases are time-consuming and resource intensive
but are essential ones for the Agency to address. Otherwise the
tag of only going after "soft" targets will remain.
Child support for children on benefit
22. The "Good Cause" rules have always
been a problem to PCS and its predecessor Unions. We believe it
is wrong to plunge a family further into poverty, that is already
by definition on the poverty line. Yet that is the inevitable
result of the imposition of a Reduced Benefit Direction on families
on Income Support. It is also perverse that some of the worst
NRPs, those who have been violent to their partners or children,
in effect get away without having to pay maintenance. It is also
interesting to note that before 1993, under the voluntary Liable
Relatives (LR) scheme, the risk of harm from ex-partners was rarely
raised as an issue and the level of co-operation by PWCs was much
higher.
23. Clearly the tax-payer has an interest in
ensuring that benefit recipients do apply for maintenance. The
question PCS would raise is whether compulsion is the most effective
means of ensuring this. Past experience of the LR scheme indicates
that the child support premium will be a major carrot to persuade
PWCs that it is in their interest to co-operate. The negative
image that CSA has suffered from has definitely encouraged many
PWCs not to co-operate thus far. But if the new system is able
to emerge fairer, quicker and offering real cash benefits for
PWCs, this attitude is likely to change.
24. PCS is therefore of the view that the requirement
to co-operate rules should not be part of the new system.
A new service focused on the needs of children
25. PCS warmly welcomes the conclusion in the
White Paper to retain the administration of the child maintenance
system within DSS. Experience has shown that the courts are unable
to assess or collect maintenance quickly or equitably. Different
courts have very different procedures, practices and attitudes.
These are then reflected in the varying amounts of orders made
and the inconsistent approaches to enforcement that different
Courts will produce.
26. While the Inland Revenue has a good track
record in collecting money from reluctant taxpayers, it has no
procedures for, or experience in, paying money out. Essentially
the Inland Revenue lacks the practical expertise and experience
required to deliver a child support system.
27. PCS firmly believe that it would have been
quite wrong for the child support system to be administered in
the private sector. Customers would be outraged at companies profiting
from their separations and family difficulties. Huge question
marks would be raised over the confidentiality of DSS records,
such as the Departmental Central Index which would be handed over
with unlimited access if CSA was privatised. Also privatisation
would be extremely badly received by the existing CSA staff. Their
experience and commitment is essential for a successful transition
to the new scheme to be achieved.
28. CSA staff, many of whom are PCS members,
have had to endure unprecedented levels of abuse and criticism
from customers, the media and even politicians. It is entirely
to the credit of those staff that CSA has survived as long as
it has. Those staff have earned the chance to deliver a system
that is workable, that is fair and that has the potential to end
the stigma of working for the CSA. CSA staff were not responsible
for the unworkable legislation of 1993 and they were not responsible
for the disastrous under-funding of the early years of CSA. It
is entirely correct that they should have this chance to prove
what they can do when the playing field is level.
29. However, it will take more than new laws
and experienced and committed staff to ensure the CSA does not
repeat the problems of 1993. Sufficient resources are crucial
and we welcome the Secretary of State's promise of exactly that.
30. Political support is also essential. We
can have no repeat of 1993 where our political masters deflected
the blame for the Agency's problems onto the CSA staff and away
from those who had voted for the legislation. Any transitional
period in particular is bound to be difficult, both administratively
and as customers adjust to new levels of payments. There will
be an inevitable outcry and controversy, but this time we expect
the support not the criticism of the government and politicians.
31. Investment in a fast, accurate and comprehensible
IT system for child support is vitally important. Again we welcome
the assurances that such a system will be funded and developed.
Much of the early administrative problems of the CSA were caused
by the decision to use a cheap second hand IT system to support
the business. Recent events in other Government agencies such
as the Passport Agency and the Immigration Service go to show
that new procedures combined with inadequate IT systems can produce
disasters. It is crucial that CSA learns from these examples.
32. Improving the levels of customer service
must be a top priority of child support reform. While most dealings
with the Agency can be satisfactorily conducted by phone or letter,
the sensitive nature of the CSA business demands that a more human
face is available for those customers who require it. PCS therefore
has already publicly welcomed the appointment of 600 face-to-face
officers to provide such a service in advance of the reforms.
33. However, in stark contrast, PCS is still
concerned that at the same time the Agency (in apparent contradiction
of its face-to-face initiative) is proposing to close most of
the 170 local CSA offices. We would strongly urge that the local
CSA offices are retained to ensure that no customer is too far
from an office where they can see a CSA officer to discuss their
case face to face. Local CSA offices also provide a valuable reserve
processing capacity for the CSAC's, if and when they become overloaded.
The benefits to customers of centralising the processing of a
sensitive business like child support in large, remote centres
are at best unclear. PCS believes the Agency should retain some
processing capacity at local level too.
Charging for the new service
34. The charging of fees was possibly the least
popular element of the original CSA scheme. It was seen as the
final straw by many and contributed greatly to the levels of non-compliance.
Accordingly any re-introduction of fees must be handled extremely
carefully.
35. PCS is not convinced that the advantages
outweigh the discontent and administrative burden that reintroducing
fees will create. NRPs should definitely be excluded from all
fees so as not to jeopardise compliance. At most, only "private
client" PWCs should be liable for fees, and only then retrospectively
once an adequate level of service has been provided.
Moving to the new scheme
36. PCS believe that the proposals to delay
transferring existing cases to the new scheme is excessively cautious
and likely to alienate a significant number of customers. In the
experience of PCS members working in CSA customers are already
eagerly anticipating the reforms and asking when their case will
be transferred to the new scheme.
37. PCS is firmly of the view that the new scheme
should be introduced as quickly as possible. If a "big bang"
approach is too risky from an administrative point of view then
a commitment to transfer all cases within a period of no longer
than one year should be made. The DSS has a track record of converting
large caseloads from one system to another, (e.g. Supplementary
Benefit to Income Support in 1988 or Income Support to Job Seekers
Allowance in 1995). As long as adequate resources and an improved
IT system are available, such a transition should be achievable.
CHAPTER
FIVE; DECIDING
LIABILITY AND
RESOLVING DISPUTES
A system for deciding liability which is focused
on the needs of parents and children—and which allows disputes
to be settled quickly and with minimum fuss.
p.31 Children's Rights and Parents Responsibilities
The decision making process and making contact
38. PCS welcomes the proposals for a stream-lined
decision-making process. However, there are certain factors that
need to be borne in mind.
— Such a system must be adequately
resourced if delays and mistakes are not to occur too frequently.
— There are risks in over reliance
on the telephone as the primary means of contact with the Agency.
Can CSA guarantee that the public will be able to get through?
Is it acceptable to ring customers at work without any prior warning
or at home at weekends?
— Verification of the NRP's circumstances
is essential and this inevitably builds delays into the process.
42. A customer-focused service for parents and
children that is quick and accurate is obviously important. The
experience of CSA staff will be crucial in seeing it delivered.
Urgent steps will therefore be needed to deal with the causes
of the high turnover of CSA staff and the problems in recruiting
new staff.
43. Streamlining of the assessment review and
change of circumstances processes is also important. We welcome
the proposals to do this in the White Paper, especially linking
the tolerance level for a change of circumstances to a percentage
of the assessment, rather than the current flat rate which has
discriminated against those on lower incomes.
44. The great advantage of the new scheme is
that a change in income will be able to be processed far quicker
than at present. This will benefit all parties, not least our
members who are as frustrated as anyone at the unavoidable delays
inherent in the complex formula.
Resolving disputes and tribunal consideration
45. It is essential that all customers have
the right of appeal to an independent tribunal. It is also sensible
that straightforward disputes are initially decided upon by CSA
staff, notwithstanding the subsequent right of appeal to a tribunal.
CHAPTER
SIX; EXCEPTIONAL
CASES
We recognise that a few families may experience
exceptional difficulties in paying child support and this should
be recognised in the maintenance that they pay.
p.39 Children's Rights and Parents Responsibilities
46. Experience of the Departures scheme shows
that it is very difficult to legislate for all exceptional expenses
that it will be just and equitable to allow. Practical experience
is bound to show the law refuses to allow an exceptional expense
that commonsense dictates should be allowed. That is why we would
recommend a catch-all clause is inserted that would allow tribunals
to vary assessments even if the specified criteria had not been
met. Such a clause could be invoked for example if there existed
a risk to the health, safety or welfare of the child or customer.
47. Payment of the mortgage on the marital home
must be treated as a payment of maintenance. Given the present
rules on payment of mortgage interest to new Income Support claimants,
which appear to be designed to force families into repossessions,
it is essential that NRPs are encouraged to pay the mortgage in
lieu of maintenance. Separation is bad enough for families without
the benefit/CSA systems driving them into homelessness as well.
CHAPTER
SEVEN; CONTACT
AND SHARED
CARE
48. The change from 104 nights to 52 nights
per year for qualifying for shared care is to be welcomed. There
has never been any logic in ignoring shared care of one day a
week.
49. The link between contact and maintenance
is a particularly difficult issue. There may be no legal link
between them, but there most certainly is a link in the minds
of parents. This can either be a NRP believing they must be entitled
to contact on the grounds that they pay the maintenance, or it
could be a PWC who does not want to receive maintenance because
they feel that this would force them to grant contact.
50. The White Paper is on balance correct not
to link maintenance legally to contact, but if this position is
to be maintained there needs to be better information provided
as to the reality of the link along with genuine encouragement
to all parties to maintain contact.
CHAPTER
EIGHT; COLLECTING
MAINTENANCE AND
THE ROLE
OF THE
COURTS
The need for regular and reliable payments of
maintenance—and a system that addresses non-compliance quickly
and effectively.
p.51 Children's Rights and Parents Responsibilities
51. It is very important that CSA continues
to provide a collection service for parents. More regular and
more reliable maintenance payments will be the marker as to the
success of the new scheme.
52. Much greater use of direct debit and standing
orders is sensible as research shows these to be the most effective
means of collection. However, it would be wrong to deny customers
the choice of transcash. There are still a lot of people who are
paid in cash and who deal almost exclusively in cash. Proportionally
many of these will be more likely to be CSA customers.
53. Resourcing of the collection service will
be most important, particularly in the area of enforcement through
the Courts which can be costly and time-consuming.
CHAPTER
NINE; CONCLUSION
AND SUMMARY
54. In our response to the Green Paper, as well
as arguing that "the greatest asset the Child Support Agency
has are its staff" and for the need of government to recognise
this, we argued for the administration of the system to be properly
resourced;
investment in a fast, accurate and comprehensible
IT system for child support; and
the emphasis of a new, reformed CSA to firmly
be one of customer service
55. We believe that there is no reason that
the proposals in the White Paper cannot meet all of these aspirations.
56. Whilst PCS do have some minor concerns about
the White Paper's proposals we do welcome many of them and its
overall broad thrust of providing for children so they can make
the most of their lives. We believe, when enacted, the proposals
will make PCS members jobs significantly easier.
57. Any concerns and criticisms we have made
in this paper are made in a spirit of partnership. We will be
happy to meet with both ministers and CSA management in order
to discuss the implementation of the paper's proposals in more
detail.
September 1999
| 
