Memorandum submitted by National Association
for Child Support Action
National Association for Child Support Action
is pleased to submit the following response to questions posed
in the Government White Paper: A new system of child maintenance.
This response is a condensed view due to the word limit, a more
in depth response will be provided to the re-design team.
SUMMARY INTRODUCTION
Given the history of the CSA
and the problems that led to its failure, we feel that whatever
replacement is introduced its foundations have to be solid and
focused in these areas.
The new system should be focused
on the welfare of the child as opposed to recovery of monies for
the Treasury.
Providing an efficient,
accurate, and speedy administrative process, executed
by well trained and experienced staff.
With an IT system that is stable,
and fit for the purpose, having the facility to record all communications,
and to supply an appropriate audit/paper trail to ensure continuity
of evidence.
Backed up by an efficient enforcement
regime, robustly applied in the right place acting as a deterrent
to the majority of non compliant NRP's.
And inaccurate and incorrect
debts to be written off.
Question 1. Are the key principles and areas
for detailed work that we have identified the right ones?
1. The White Paper does identify appropriate
key principles, but how will the success of these be measured?
Strong focus should be made on appropriate advertising with simple,
plain English information given to parents from an extensive range
of sources.
2. We would add that the realisation by
the Government that children should benefit in preference to the
Treasury is most welcome, and the removal of compulsory application
to C-MEC is a positive step to help in the struggle to eradicate
child poverty. Also, that the disregard will eventually be increased
for those PWCs on benefit and who do have to use C-MEC. Caution
has to be observed in limiting high disregards which could be
seen as an incentive to apply to C-MEC in preference to making
private arrangements.
3. We welcome the proposal to introduce
a register on which details of private arrangements are recorded.
This would help prevent PWCs from denying any private payment
as being made should difficulties in the arrangement occur. Experience
has shown us that the word of the PWC is believed over that of
the NRP leaving the NRP in many cases, having to pay twice for
certain periods. The official recording of payments agreedand
paid, would prevent this situation from continuing.
4. Other ideas for consideration might be:
Incentives could be introduced
to encourage parents to agree to private arrangements.
Staff training should be thorough
and comprehensive.
Face-to-face discussions of
the benefits of making private arrangements, with guidelines of
what they would pay under C-MEC.
Applications to C-MEC to undergo
certain checks on what attempts at private arrangements had been
made.
Inspection as to whether valid
reason for application to C-MEC.
Start off team ... job to make
preliminary enquiries to see if private arrangement is appropriate.
Question 2. Do you think the three aims set
out in Paragraph 3.14 are appropriate?
5. NACSA agrees that these three aims are
appropriate, in particular "ensuring the delivery of
a high-quality and efficient service through its commissioning
role", as stated in the White Paper. However, we
have been given these assurances before and been sorely let down;
we hope that lessons have been truly learned and the new system
delivers the service it promises.
Question 3. Do the principles for moving
forward set out at paragraph 3.21 provide the right approach?
6. NACSA is disappointed by the apparent
back pedalling that is implied by the use of the phrase "transition
to the new regime". Transition is a word now associated with
moving from CS1 to CS2 and which failed in the public view. "A
clean break" was the term used originally and this is the
only way to attempt regain public confidence. Transition from
CSA to C-MEC would surely also move all the complexities onto
the new system? Particularly so if the IT contract remains with
EDS. NACSA totally disagree with such a move; a clean break should
mean just that! For the rest of the principles we would agree.
Question 4. Is our approach of combining
a simpler assessment formula with an exceptions regime the right
one?
7. NACSA does not believe that C-MEC needs
to be any simpler than the current CS2 procedure. To simplify
further would be to force a wider view of the picture which in
effect would mean less flexibility to handle individual circumstances.
8. The illustration chosen to describe the
use of gross pay as a basis for assessment confirms that in the
main the amount assessed would be higher for most NRP's, bringing
potential risk of an increase in non compliance and subsequently
more PWCs fighting to secure maintenance.
9. We acknowledge the suggestion that the
basic rates can be altered more readily than is currently the
case. We would like reassurance that such increases are limited
in regularity.
10. We believe that the client should have
a single point of access, preferably a nominated case officer
who handles a case from start to finish, including being the initial
contact in the complaints procedure. This officer would be accountable
if the case was not maintained correctly, or maintenance not flowing
quickly.
11. NACSA would accept the need for the
new powers to access information from financial institutions only
if they were used against non-compliant NRP's. However, due to
the potential risk of NRP details being accessed easily once in
the financial institutions we would express concern over the proposal
to upload information about non-compliant NRP's to such institutions.
12. Using HM Revenue and Customs would be
useful source of information to secure up to date income and for
keeping tabs on the whereabouts of NRP's. Using HM Revenue and
Customs would be useful in capturing those (mainly self employed)
NRP's who manipulate their income details to avoid high assessments
or to disguise their lifestyle.
13. The variations scheme is acceptable
but should be more inclusive, i.e. taking into account all the
demonstrable expenses incurred by the NRP. Further simplification
of the system will not guarantee a happierand thus compliant
customeronly an efficient system will.
14. We would agree with the proposal to
increase the flat rate amount from £5 to £7 pw.
Question 5. Which of the three approaches
outlined in paragraphs 4.25 to 4.27 should be employed to determine
child maintenance liabilities in a case of this kind?
15. As the focus of C-MEC is to encourage
private arrangements for child support, recognition should be
shown for any such agreement. However, to avoid situations whereby
private arrangements are manipulated to reduce other maintenance
payments, we feel that all relevant children should be considered
within the calculation procedure, even though this may result
in a different amount to that actually being paid under the private
agreement.
Question 6. Are there other approaches to
enforcement that we should consider?
16. The sanctions CSA currently have at
their disposal are sufficient. C-MEC will inherit all these powers
so there is no need for more. It is a sad fact that current enforcement
is applied erratically. Cases are ruthlessly pursued without genuine
cause, whilst others involve PWCs who have fought for years with
only meagre attempts at debt recovery being evident. This cannot
be allowed to continue into C-MEC if confidence is to be restored.
17. We believe the onus should be upon C-MEC
to process and maintain the account accurately. This will reduce
the opportunity for debt to be disputed and enforcement can be
applied more efficiently. The figures detailed in Table 5.1 indicate
that a large proportion of the cases that go to court are either
thrown out or are withdrawn which represents a very wasteful cost
to the taxpayer, as well as bringing confusion and distress to
both parents.
18. We would fully support the notion that
Child Support is a subject that could be incorporated into PHSE
lessons for sixth formers to educate future generations of parents
about their responsibilities towards children.
Question 7. Is the shift from a predominantly
court-based enforcement system to an administrative approach the
right way to make enforcement more effective?
19. Current processes for debt recovery
often take place against inaccurate assessment debts, collected
from fully compliant parents with little or no regard given to
the accuracy of the case or the effects the enforcement action
may have on families. These parents often rely on "their
day in court" as the only avenue to voice concerns over the
alleged debt. The mere suggestion of removing this process is
inconceivable. NACSA would not support, and would wholeheartedly
object to such a proposal until C-MEC has shown itself to be accurate
and efficient for a minimum period of two years.
Question 8. Are we right to give more focus
to chasing collectable debt?
20. NACSA would urge that before any enforcement
action be taken the debt should be proved to be ACCURATE and TRUE;
not the result of procrastination or error on the assessors part.
NACSA disagrees with the proposal to factor (sell) debts which
would only lead to bigger debts as a result of interest being
added by the new owner (who will be looking to make a return).
Genuine debts however should be recovered where possible.
21. Lord Hutton has said that Contractors
engaged in debt recovery will "Be encouraged to be innovative,
within existing legislation". It is well documented that
many debt collection operatives in the field abuse their powers
in order to get a result. As the DCA will be driven by the profit
motive NACSA is concerned that if the DCA is not robustly monitored,
then such unlawful, strong-arm tactics may be used to intimidate
NRP's as we so often see now. NACSA shares the concerns of Lord
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, who expressed concerns with handing over
sensitive data to private firms.
22. If it is decided that collecting debts
is to be contracted out, then NACSA would be looking for reassurance
that: the cost will bourne by the Department, that only reputable
organisations will be engaged, that all successful contractors
will be subject to strict codes of practice and will be required
to adhere to all relevant legislation such as child support, human
rights and data protection legislation. We would ask who would
be responsible for ensuring such codes of practise were adhered
to.
23. Where the debt is to be collected from
the estate of a deceased NRP due regard should be given to the
financial status of any surviving dependents that may be pushed
below the poverty line by such payments.
Question 9. Is our approach in seeking write-off
powers in strictly limited circumstances the right one?
24. It was recommended by David Henshaw
that the outstanding debts were to be written off; it has now
been decided not to do so but "... that we should revalue
some overstated debts". During evidence to the Select Committee
session 15 February 2006, (question 106) Mr Geraghty said;
"We have interim maintenance assessments
where we made up a number to frighten people into compliance,
effectively, an estimate of assessment, which when we do get the
data in tend to be over-valued by about two-thirds. We have close
to £1.3 billion of those in the debt mountain ...."
NACSA totally disagrees with the ruthless debt
recovery against debts created in this manner when experience
has shown that a large proportion of these IMA's should have been
either converted many years ago, or never applied to the debt
account as they pre-date the required legislation to enforce .
These notional and dare we say illegal debts should be written
off immediately, especially if charged against a deceased NRP.
IN CONCLUSION
25. NACSA agree with some of the proposals,
but has some reservations about the confidence The Government
has in the success of the new scheme (given the history so far).
Certain proposals we feel could be the downfall of C-MEC as they
will prove to simply reflect the current failings. But we cannot
re-iterate enoughthat no proposal will work unless the
system operates as it should.
8 January 2007
|