| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Angela Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman absolutely. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour, and we should not kowtow to it by setting up a system that seems to create incentives for people to behave in that way. I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman made in his earlier intervention.
When the good cause definitions were changed from 10 and 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. in 1996, 70 per cent. of parents with care initially claimed that they had good cause not to co-operate with the CSA. That point has been raised more than once by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
Parents have a responsibility to support their children. The benefits system should step in only when they are unable to do so. Child support should not be optional. The underlying purpose of a reduced benefit direction is to encourage parents with care to apply for child support, unless they have good reason or good cause not to do so.
We believe that a benefit penalty of 40 per cent. of the adult applicable amount in income support, which is not the whole amount of benefit and certainly not that which would be allocated for the children, is set at the right level to achieve that.
About 85 per cent. of parents with care claiming benefit co-operate with the CSA in seeking maintenance, which compares with only 30 per cent. who used to co-operate. This total turn-around, which has occurred in a very short time and is an extremely positive development, is due in part to the improved closer working arrangements between the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency. It is a real achievement.
Since April 1999, Benefits Agency staff assist new income support clients in completing maintenance application forms where appropriate. That means that clients need give information to the Department only once. However, the fact remains that some parents with care refuse to co-operate with the agency without good cause, so we need to retain a meaningful penalty provision. It would be unfair on children if we did not impose sanctions on parents with care who unreasonably prevent--I stress, unreasonably prevent--the recovery of child support.
We are very conscious of the need to protect vulnerable parents and their children. As I said earlier, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the parent with care or any child living with her would suffer harm or undue distress as a result of pursuing child support, no penalty will be imposed.
Mr. George:
Prior to the improvement in the CSA's record, how many of the parents not co-operating with the CSA were claiming good cause?
Angela Eagle:
I do not know the figures off the top of my head, but I shall give them to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
I was about to share with the House the drop, as a percentage of case load, in the number of people on reduced benefit directions. That has come down from 19 per cent. in 1997-98 to 9 per cent. now, and we hope to bring it down even further.
In Committee, Opposition Members tabled an amendment proposing that the courts should be able to impose a curfew or a community service order for refusal to pay child support maintenance, with which I had some sympathy, and I agreed to see whether we could frame amendments to achieve that aim. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has the letter that I sent to him after careful, not perfunctory, consideration. I was anxious to see whether that could be done.
Unfortunately, sanctions such as curfews or community service orders are penalties for criminal offences and non-payment of child support is a civil issue. Extending the Bill as Opposition Members suggest would mean importing into the civil system all the legislative and operational arrangements that apply to the criminal courts. For example, probation officers would have to provide pre-sentencing reports and the mechanics surrounding electronic tagging where private sector firms are appointed to monitor the arrangements.
The effect of that would be to superimpose on the civil system virtually all the penalties available in the criminal courts, and we would lose the distinction between magistrates sitting in their civil and criminal capacities.
We considered the matter carefully, but we could find no way to legislate for such penalties without superimposing the criminal system on the civil system.
Mr. Burns:
It may assist the hon. Lady if I draw to her attention the precedent of curfews imposed in certain parts of our towns and cities to keep young people off the streets at night. I understand that that has been done under the civil, not the criminal, law.
Angela Eagle:
That is not my information, but I shall check.
Mr. Swayne:
Given what I describe as the unnatural nature of what I believe is a crime--the determination not to make a financial provision for one's own offspring--would it not be appropriate for the hon. Lady to impose a criminal penalty when the Bill is reintroduced in the other place?
Angela Eagle:
That is the hon. Gentleman's view, but I have looked at the matter carefully and I do not think that it would be appropriate to make non-payment of child support a criminal offence. I shall explain why.
Criminal sanctions are about punishment. Child support is about doing what is best for children and encouraging fathers to pay maintenance and, hopefully, in most circumstances, to play a full part in their children's lives. That would not be achieved by criminalising the non-payment of child support. The downside of that outweighs the positive effects that the hon. Gentleman outlines. I realise that people might have a different view, but that is the view that I take.
Mr. Pickles:
I recognise that the hon. Lady understands the benefits of such a measure and rejects it reluctantly, but will she confirm that taking away a driving licence is an alternative to imprisonment? If so, I do not understand the difference between imprisoning someone and imposing a curfew order. As the hon. Lady supports our objective, she must have received legal advice, so perhaps she would share it with us.
Angela Eagle:
Clearly, the courts have to decide when someone comes before them whether he or she has culpably and neglectfully--I think that those are the words used in the legislation--declined to pay child support, so there must be on-going evidence of complete non-co-operation and refusal to accept responsibility. It is then up to the courts to determine the penalty: removing the driving licence or the ultimate sanction of committal to prison. Evidence from other countries and jurisdictions shows that removing a driving licence is an effective method of getting child support maintenance paid. We look forward to approving that when the sanction becomes available to the courts. However, it will be up to the courts to decide whether to effect it in every case.
I appreciate that Conservative Members are trying to be helpful in tabling the new clause; I genuinely tried to be helpful in seeking ways of including its substance that had no major implications for the criminal and civil court system. I could not do that, but I am glad that there is so much cross-party support for our aim of helping to eradicate child poverty by ensuring that all parents support their children.
I ask hon. Members to reject new clauses 4 and 5 and amendments Nos. 79 and 89 for the reasons that I outlined. Government amendment No. 40 would make technical changes to clause 16, which introduces a new civil penalty and gives the courts the power to disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence when child support is not paid. It clarifies that the courts are required to notify the Secretary of State or, as he directs, the Drivers and Vehicle Licensing Agency when a disqualification order has been made, amended or lifted.
Mr. Burns:
Would someone's driving licence be taken away in lieu of paying the money, or would it be an additional penalty to bring pressure on the person to pay? I hope that it is the latter.
Angela Eagle:
It is not in lieu of paying the money. The simple way of retaining one's driving licence is to pay before the courts decide to take it away. We hope that that will be the penalty's DRIVE--Development of Rural Initiative, Venture and Enterprise [Wales] DVLA Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, effect. However, if payment continues not to be made, the courts can make another disqualification order.
Mr. Field
: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does the Bill provide for offices to use the driving licence centre as a way of tracing individuals? If the driving licence is in the relevant individual's name, can the make of car be used as evidence about life style? I appreciate that the question moves the debate on, but I could not envisage another opportunity of raising the matter.
Angela Eagle:
As always, my right hon. Friend is creative in his questions. I suspect that the answer is yes, but I want to check some data protection matters and be confident that I am right before issuing a ringing yes.
Mr. Pickles:
The Minister has been very courteous. We got rather excited about the Bill in Committee and spent much time on curfew orders. We did not ask a question that perhaps we should have asked. Will the driving licence be removed for a period or until the debt is paid? Before the driving licence is restored, would the person have to resit a test?
4.45 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |