§ Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on the Child Support Agency (1st Report 1995–96 HC Paper 31) (Q.225), whether anyone who gave up his job because payment of maintenance 113WA under the Child Support Act 1991 left him unable to afford the fares to work would be held to have given up his job "for no good reason".
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the noble Lord.
Letter to The Earl Russell from Miss Ann Chant, Chief Executive, Child Support Agency dated 31 January 1996.
I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to Her Majesty's Government asking what the effect on benefit entitlement would be if an absent parent claimed to have given up a job because they could not afford their fares to work after paying legally due child maintenance.
There should be no basis for such a claim.
The protected income element of the maintenance formula ensures that there is a cap on the amount of maintenance that an absent parent will be asked to pay. This currently stands at 30 per cent. of net income for regular maintenance and 33 per cent. where an absent parent also has arrears of maintenance to pay.
Moreover, the Child Support Act 1995 made provision for absent parents with high travel to work costs to have this taken into account in their maintenance assessment. In brief, an allowance of £0.10 is made for every mile over 150 miles travelled weekly. This change was made specifically to address the problems faced by absent parents who incurred high travel costs to and from work.