§ The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for a new system for securing the maintenance of children, on which a White Paper entitled "Children Come First" is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office.
I should emphasise at the outset that, while it seemed appropriate for me as Social Security Secretary to make this statement, the purpose and context of these proposals extend well beyond my Department. The White Paper is presented jointly by myself, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is also making a statement today in another place.
Governments cannot, of course, ensure that all children always live with both their parents, but they can and should seek to ensure that, whatever the underlying circumstances, the welfare, of the children is the prime consideration. An effective system for securing their financial maintenance is an important element in achieving that objective.
The present arrangements are, by common consent, deficient. As the various surveys and background papers published with this White Paper clearly show, they are fragmented, inconsistent, and too often subject to uncertainty and delay. They lack systematic provision for review and updating as circumstances change. Even where a maintenance obligation has been clearly established, it can be difficult to enforce and the caring parent may face great additional difficulties and pressures in protecting the children's rights.
The result is that only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers currently receive maintenance for their children regularly, and that some two thirds of lone parents and their children now depend wholly or partly on income support. Such a position is in the interests of neither the parents nor, above all, the children, and, of course, it places a large burden on those who pay tax, many of whom are themselves bringing up children on perhaps quite modest incomes. The cost of income-related benefits for lone parents has risen, in real terms, from less than £1.5 billion in 1981–82 to more than £3 billion in 1988–89.
As the House is aware, a number of steps have already been taken, either administratively or through legal changes such as those in the recent Social Security Act 1989 to make improvements within the present system. We shall press ahead with those, since it will clearly take time to undertake wider reform, but the Government have firmly concluded that such wider reform is now required, and the White Paper sets out our proposals.
There are three major elements in those proposals. The first is a clear formula for the assessment of maintenance, which can be applied administratively rather than through the courts. The aim here is to establish a single system available to all, giving consistent and predicable decisions with a realistic relationship to the costs of providing for the care of a child, and the subject to regular reviews. The 730 second is a purpose-built agency to undertake the assessment itself, and the work of collection and enforcement where necessary. The third is measures to enhance the payment of maintenance as a foundation on which lone parents can build greater independence for themselves and their children. I will deal briefly with each in turn.
The assessment formula will itself consist of three main parts. The starting point will be the calculation of a maintenance bill, which the parents will be expected to pay if they can afford to do so. It will be based on the appropriate income support rates, including the caring parent's own personal allowance. That represents the costs of caring for the children, and will thus take account of the number and age of the children.
Once the bill is calculated, the next step will be to assess the amount which the absent parent keeps from his net—I stress "net"—income for his own necessary expenses. That is described in the White Paper as "exempt income" and it will include his reasonable housing costs and the costs of any other children he is liable to support. There will, additionally, be a protected level of income, set by reference to the income support level, to avoid the situation in which the absent parent could be better off on benefit than in work.
Thirdly, the amount expected to be paid in maintenance is then worked out on the basis of sharing the remaining income—what is left after allowing for the necessary expenses—equally with the children, up to the point at which the maintenance bill is met. Once that has occurred, contributions will continue, but taking a smaller share of any additional exempt income and thus, as would be expected in any family, the children will share in the standard of living of their parents. Where the caring parent has sufficient income, he or she will also be expected to contribute towards the maintenance bill.
Absent parents on income support have the same basic resoponsibility towards their children as others, and we therefore think it right both to bring them within the system and, with appropriate exceptions, to expect from them a small maintenance contribution. The White Paper suggests 5 per cent. of the adult personal allowance, in line with the standard deductions made for other purposes. We hope to begin applying the formula within the current system from early in 1992.
The second main element in our proposals is the establishment of a Child Support Agency. It will have responsibility for tracing absent parents, assessing, collecting and where necessary enforcing maintenance payments. It will need powers to make a legally binding assessment, to require information and to determine the method of payment. It will be required to review the maintenance payable every year. In Great Britain, the Agency will operate as a "next steps" executive agency within my Department. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make similar arrangements in Northern Ireland.
When the agency is fully operational, the courts will no longer decide applications for child maintenance or applications to vary existing awards. The courts will retain jurisdiction over related matters which arise when parents separate or divorce. Those matters include residence of and contact with children, disputed paternity, property settlements and spousal maintenance. We hope that the 731 agency will begin work in early 1993, though the number of cases potentially involved means that it will be some time before all existing cases can be taken on.
Parents may choose to apply to the agency or make their own private arrangements, using if they wish the published formula. Where, however, the caring parent is receiving income support or family credit for herself and the children—that is to say, where the public can be seen to have an interest—she will be obliged to use the agency's services.
Since it is no more acceptable for a caring parent simply to choose not to seek maintenance than for an absent parent simply to choose not to pay it, we think it right—again with appropriate exceptions—to make it possible for a deduction to be made from the adult personal allowance if he or she unreasonably refuses to help in pursuing it.
The third element in our proposals, to which I also attach great importance, is one which builds on the advantages of regular payments of maintenance in making it easier for lone parents, as many wish to do, to move from reliance on income support into work and thus greater independence. To that end we propose, at the same time as the formula is introduced, to make two significant changes in benefit rules.
One is to introduce into family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit a maintenance disregard of £15 a week, so that only above that level will maintenance have any effect on the help otherwise given by those benefits to parents who are working. The other will be to widen the scope of family credit for all parents, but in a way likely to be of particular importance to lone parents. We shall make it possible to claim this benefit when working only for 16 hours weekly, instead of the present 24. That should make it much easier for parents to combine work with their responsibilities for caring for their children. A parallel change will be made in the income support rules, so that that can be claimed only when working less than 16 hours.
In making those changes, we shall ensure full transitional protection for the small number of people who might otherwise be adversely affected. The choice of whether to work or not must of course be for the parent, but it is clear that many wish to do so, and where that is so it is right that we should seek to help, as these measures will.
Our proposals for a formula and an agency, including the rights of appeal to whose precise form we are giving further consideration, will require legislation. That will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. In the first two years, our proposals will give rise to some additional net expenditure, principally in establishing the agency and in making the benefit changes I have just described. From then onwards, however, we expect to see net savings, initially modest but building up in the longer term. More important, however, we shall have a system which better serves the parents and the children themselves. In conjunction with the Children Act 1989 and the wide-ranging review of the family justice system as a whole, which the Government have in hand it is an important further step in making sure that children do indeed come first.
§ Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West)Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we strongly support the principle of the state assisting with the collection of child maintenance 732 and agree that fathers should be expected to accept responsibility for their children? As the House knows, I issued a consultation paper last year, making that proposal a month before the Prime Minister's speech recommending it, which demonstrates that there is cross-party support in the House for this principle.
However, we have considerable reservations about the means by which the right hon. Gentleman intends to operate the agency. In particular, is it not clear from the way that the Government have drafted the scheme that the main intention is to save public expenditure rather than to remedy child poverty and enable lone parents to gain self-sufficiency? When there has been time for people clearly to read the paper, perhaps they will think that it should have been entitled not "Children Come First" but "The Treasury Comes First."
For a mother on income support, where the right hon. Gentleman is proposing no disregard on maintenance—so the mother is permitted to keep none of the money collected without a corresponding reduction in her income support—it is clear that she gains nothing; only the Government gain, through a reduction in public expenditure. Will not the father feel intense resentment that none of his enforced maintenance will go to the child or to the mother, but only to the Department of Social Security? Is not the lack of a maintenance disregard when the mother stays at home with her child a basic flaw in the scheme, as without it, neither mother nor father will have an incentive to participate? Does not that reveal that the real purpose behind the scheme is to save Government expenditure?
If the mother does seek a job, will the £15 maintenance disregard that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing for family credit, really assist her in gaining her independence when she still has to meet far higher expenses in child care costs and, if she is an owner occupier, in mortgage interest payments? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, given those large offsets, a mother would probably have to earn more than £150 a week—10 times as much—before she was better off than she would be on income support?
Will a £15 maintenance disregard on family credit offer much of a pathway out of poverty? According to a recent CBI survey, 70 per cent. of lone parents want to work but cannot because there is no child care provision available. Is it not clear that, without those other elements, of a genuine family policy, which the Government have so far grossly neglected, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will do very little either to cure poverty or to help lone parents to regain their independence?
As to the father—the absent parent is usually the father—will not the requirement for him to pay up to 50 per cent. of his income, after allowances for necessary personal expenses, simply transfer poverty from the first family to the second family if the father has other children in another relationship?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that surveys have shown that up to one third of men liable to pay child maintenance are either unemployed or on very low incomes, so that, even given a protected income for the second family at income support levels, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will simply leave both families on the poverty line? Does he not understand that, if he takes a punitive attitude to absent fathers and forces them to make unreasonable levels of payment, he will create hostility and antagonism and damage the relationship between the absent father and his child?
733 Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he wanted a scheme along the lines of the Australian and Wisconsin models, whereby the father would pay to support the child, and at much lower percentages of his income—but the Treasury insisted that the father should pay for the full maintenance costs of the mother as well, including her mortgage interest payments, up to the crippling rate of 50 per cent.?
Does not that again expose the fact that it is a cost saving, not a poverty reducing, exercise? Is it not likely that a penal 50 per cent. repayment rate will have the perverse result of pushing more second families into dependence on benefit than it will rescue first families from it? Will the right hon. Gentleman also reconsider the element of compulsion in the scheme, which forces the mother to name the father on pain of otherwise losing up to 20 per cent. of benefit? Will the mother have an untramelled right——
§ Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)Some of the children are yours.
§ Mr. Meacher—to refuse to name the father when she fears that he might be violent or where she may not be certain that she knows who is the father?—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. All these interruptions take time. We are in the middle of hearing a response to the Secretary of State's statement.
§ Mr. SpeakerDo I understand that an allegation has been made against the hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. HayesA remarkable allegation was made, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—all the more remarkable, I suspect, to my wife than to me—that I had sired illegitimate children. To the best of my knowledge, I have not.
§ Ms. ShortI was not referring, Mr. Speaker, just to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), but was pointing out to Conservative Members that some of them may have fathered children that they do not know about—and might end up being named.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is an unworthy allegation for the hon. Lady to make. I ask her to withdraw it.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Lady specifically mentioned Conservative Members, and it is that remark that I am asking her to withdraw.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I thought that I heard the hon. Lady refer—in fact, I think that she did refer—to Conservative Members. I am asking her to withdraw not the generality of her remark but the allegation against Conservative Members.
§ Ms. ShortI was making the point, Mr. Speaker, that many men—including those on the Conservative Benches, and on these Benches, and outside——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I ask the hon. Lady to do the right thing. She knows exactly what I am asking her to do, and I ask her please to do it now.
§ Ms. ShortI am very sorry about this, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to challenge your authority, but I mean the point that I am making, which is not just about Conservative Members but includes them. I mean it, and I am very sorry, but I am not willing to withdraw it.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Lady is an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, and she must withdraw her allegation against Conservative Members. That is what she has said, and if she looks at the record in Hansard she will see that that is what she said. That is what I am asking her to withdraw, please.
§ Mr. Speakerrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Time is getting on. We have a very busy day ahead. The hon. Lady knows exactly what I am asking her to do, as does the whole House.
§ Ms. ShortI have made no specific allegations, Mr. Speaker, against any right hon. or hon. Member.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes you have."] I am sorry, but I was making a point about the statement, and about forcing women to name the fathers of their children.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I would be deeply reluctant to have to take further action in relation to the hon. Lady. I heard her say it and the House heard her make an allegation against hon. Gentlemen. That is what I am asking her to withdraw. Will she now withdraw that, so that we can get on?
§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. No, I shall not deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am dealing with the hon. Lady.
§ Ms. ShortI did not, and no one in the House heard me, make a specific allegation about any hon. Member. I am making a point that I mean, and it is important. I respect you greatly, Mr. Speaker, but I am not going to be bullied on this matter. I have not broken the rules of the House. I have not made an allegation against any hon. Member, and I would not do so.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that we cannot continue like this. I heard the hon. Lady make that allegation—[Interruption.] I am dealing with it. All the hon. Lady needs to do is to get up and withdraw any reflection upon hon. Members in the House. I am not asking her to withdraw a reflection on men in general. That is a matter for her. Will she withdraw any reflection upon hon. Members?
§ Ms. ShortI was making a comment about men in general and there are a lot of men in the House, and that is the only sense in which it is a reflection. I am not casting 735 any aspersions on individual hon. Members. I am making a serious and important point about men in general. It just happens to be the case that a lot of hon. Members are men, that is all.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have said that I do not think that that is good enough. The hon. Lady is a Front Bench spokeswoman. I am asking her to do the right and honourable thing, otherwise I much regret that I shall have to take action which I would deeply regret.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am asking her to do it.
§ Mr. Meacherrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, order. I am asking her to do it. She has already said that she has respect for the Chair, and I believe her. I am asking her to withdraw any reflection on any hon. Member.
§ Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles)rose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not need any help. I am asking the hon. Lady to withdraw her remarks.
§ Ms. ShortI am extremely sorry about this. One of the reasons I came into politics was that I did not like bullying. I am not casting any aspersions on any hon. Member, truly I am not. It seems to me that if you thought there was an aspersion it requires a withdrawal, Mr. Speaker, but I did not cast such an aspersion and therefore there is nothing to withdraw. I mean the other point that I made, and it is very important.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall ask for the extract of Hansardto be brought down to me so that I can check and see exactly what was said. If what I think the hon. Lady said is in Hansard I shall expect her to withdraw it. We must now get on.
§ Mr. MeacherI am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
I was talking about the important point of principle—the compulsion for a mother to name a father. I asked the Secretary of State whether the mother will have an untrammelled right to refuse to name the father, when she fears that he might be violent or when she is not certain who the father is. If not, how will the right hon. Gentleman avoid going down the road of compulsory blood testing, paternity suits and genetic fingerprinting?
I strongly urge him to say, in general, what guarantee he can give that the power to withhold benefit will not be biased in favour of cost saving rather than protecting the basic right of the mother. We are also very concerned that the Government are removing the freedom to choose to stay at home with their children from lone parents on benefit, even if that is in their children's interests.
Does the righ hon. Gentleman accept that the thrust of his proposals is to drive lone parents into work, whatever the needs of their children? Since the absent father will have to pay to maintain the mother if she does not work, he will no doubt pressurise her to work. She will be allowed to keep the £15 a week maintenance only if she claims benefits associated with low pay but not if she chooses to stay at home with her children.
This is potentially a very important new scheme, but its proposed methods of operation are seriously flawed. It will be effective only if its structure is designed not primarily to 736 save the Government money but as part of a wider family policy to remedy child poverty and help lone parents—both mothers and fathers—to gain security and freedom of choice.
§ Mr. NewtonMay I assure the House that I have no intention of taking the risk of making any general observation about women? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. There are a considerable number of Lords amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill, and I know that the House is anxious to reach a conclusion on at least one very important amendment. The House will have to sit very late if we do not get on with the statement.
§ Mr. NewtonI welcome, in the spirit in which I think the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) offered it, his general support for the principle of what the Government are seeking to do and the clear expression that he gave to it. I am sure that others will also welcome his general support. I welcome rather less some of the hon. Gentleman's other comments, not least because they went some way towards misrepresenting our proposals.
It is far-fetched to suggest that the only aim is to save money in circumstances in which the first result of the Government's proposals, including not least the benefit improvements to the in-work benefits, is to increase, riot reduce, expenditure. I reject also the suggestion that, where maintenance is paid, there is no gain to those on income support and that the only beneficiary is the taxpayer. Given that the taxpayer has been picking up a bill that was not properly the taxpayer's, simply because maintenance was not being paid, it is far form clear that it is either rational or logical to believe that the taxpayer should continue to pay that bill, even when maintenance is being propertly paid.
Moreover, from the point of view of lone parents, especially those many who wish to work, the fact that maintenance is to be paid to the lone parent will put her in a substantially better position if and when she is able to take work. That is portable income which goes with her; it is hers by right when she moves off benefit. It provides a better platform for the transition.
As for the £15 disregard, the hon. Gentleman has probably not yet had time to study the examples in the White Paper. However, he will see that that, especially when taken in conjunction with what we have done this very month to improve the housing benefit earnings disregard, significantly improves the return that many lone parents will get from working. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
We estimate that the combination of the proposals that I have included in the White Paper will enable between 50,000 and 75,000 lone parents who currently do not feel that they are able to go out to work to do so. That is a gain, from everybody's point of view.
One of the hon. Gentleman's last points was his allegation that, somehow, we are compelling lone caring parents to name the father. There is no question of compulsion. It is worth remembering that between 80 and 90 per cent. of never-married mothers readily assist in tracing and collecting maintenance from the father. We shall make the necessary exceptions for circumstances such as rape and incest. Before any action was taken under the proposal that I have announced, there would be a considerable amount of sympathetic investigation by 737 trained officers to establish whether a lone parent had reasonable grounds. Where it was found that those grounds were not reasonable, there would be the usual right of appeal under the social security system. That is not a draconian step but a reasonable one in the circumstances of our policy as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had in some way been attracted by one or other of the ingredients of some of the foreign schemes that we have considered. He has misread the position. I was not particularly attracted by the Wisconsin scheme, to which he especially referred. That relates to the absent parent's gross income, which means that the percentage figures that are sometimes quoted represent a much higher figure than those that I have suggested. It makes no allowance for second families, and in many ways it does not seem to be a satisfactory model.
On the point that we are somehow seeking to take half of an absent parent's income, I stress that we are talking about sharing the income that is left after taking the absent parent's net income—his income after tax and national insurance. We are allowing for reasonable housing costs and other obligations and then sharing the rest of the income with the children. The net result, in most cases, is nothing like 50 per cent. but much more like a quarter, and when compared with gross income it is more like 20 per cent. For people on reasonable earnings to be expected to contribute 20 per cent. of their income to the maintenance of their children is in no way unreasonable, and I believe that it will have widespread public support.
§ Mr. John Bowis (Battersea)Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will receive much welcome from my constituents, many of whom are lone mothers with children and who have been unable to get out of the housing and income cycle because of the absence of support from the father of their children? Will he consider the group of young males, many of whom are under the age of 18, who compete to father as many children as they can? Will he consider particularly carefully the incomes that they will provide? Will such payments be made through their parents until, once they are 18, they can pay for themselves?
§ Mr. NewtonThere is no proposal in the White Paper, nor do I have such a proposal, seeking to take money from parents one generation upwards. The formula that we are proposing provides for, and takes account of, the circumstances when young men have acquired the responsibility that inescapably goes with fathering children. I think that my hon. Friend will find that clearly set out in the paper.
§ Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)May I give a general welcome to the Secretary of State's statement? Why, as the Conservative party claims to be the party of the family, has it taken so long to bring forward these proposals, when over the past 11 years the idea that parents should support their children has, for a large group of the population, collapsed as a principle affecting their private conduct? Does he accept that many constituents will be pleased that there may be a saving in public expenditure? Some Labour Members do not wish low-wage earners to contribute to the Exchequer when people on higher incomes could but do not make maintenance payments for their children.
738 Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that two areas will probably concern many families, particularly women? First, although it is logical to say, "The father should pay maintenance, so why should the mother keep any of it?", public policy does not often work satisfactorily if one allows only for logic. We must work with the grain of human nature, and surely an incentive might make a big difference.
Secondly, while a few mothers may decide to be cussed and not name the father of their children, many other women, for good reasons, will not wish to give his name, and many of them will be frightened to do so. What assurance can the Minister give the House that this policy will be conducted sensibly enough to make sure that not only those who can without any worry to themselves disclose the name, do so, but those who would be frightened to do so do not have to pay the penalty of a cut in benefit if they refuse?
§ Mr. NewtonI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he has supported the generality of the proposals, just as he has consistently done over a long period.
I have already commented on the incentives issue. It is right to focus what we are doing principally on in-work benefits rather than out-of-work benefits, for reasons which are set out in the White Paper and which I explained.
I am grateful for the thoughtful way in which the hon. Gentleman put his last point. I have made it clear that there will be provision for no deductions to be made in circumstances where it is judged reasonable that the caring parent should not wish to assist in pursuing maintenance. That must inescapably be a matter of judgment by trained officers on the basis of skilled interviewing.
One of the advantages of setting up a purpose-built agency is that we are much more likely to have that kind of staff than we are under the present arrangements. The hon. Gentleman can have my personal assurance that it is not our intention to "pursue" people in this way—if we want to use that kind of language—where they have a good reasoon for not co-operating.
§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)Does my right hon. Friend agree that these welcome measures should encourage a greater sense of responsibility, so that more parents stand by their children in the first place? On a point of interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), will my right hon. Friend confirm that courts will have the power to use genetic tests in disputed cases?
§ Mr. NewtonI said in my statement that disputes about paternity will be matters for the courts. It is open to them to use precisely the same techniques and methods as they use now to establish the truth in a disputed paternity case. On my hon. Friend's wider point, I hope that these measures will have that effect, but they will have the advantage of making the situation that follows a breakdown or separation clearer and less of a lottery and hassle than it too often is at present. That will be a clear social gain for all involved.
§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)Does the Secretary of State accept that, from our point of view, it is right and just that a father who can pay but will not should be pursued? We understand that, if this policy 739 is enforced inflexibly, it will cause more trouble than it is worth. Any divorce lawyer will tell the right hon. Gentleman that many divorced women happily forgo their right to alimony and maintenance on condition that the former husband forgoes the right of access to the child? Many estranged husbands deliberately use a weapon of torment against their former wives—access to the children of the marriage. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Child Support Agency will protect women whose husbands say to them, "I am paying for these brats and I will jolly well see them,"—usually at Christmas?
§ Mr. NewtonThe two issues are clearly seen in the White Paper, and perhaps even more clearly seen in my mind, as entirely separate. To the extent that one is used as a lever in respect of the other, I am opposed to that. One advantage of our proposal is that it will make it much more difficult for people to use maintenance as a lever separately from access questions, which need to be separately resolved, because it will be much more difficult to avoid maintenance.
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)Is it not a scandal that only 23 per cent. of single-parent families are supported by the missing father? Is not the most important point that we have heard today the fact that this agency will pursue these fathers to contribute, which will be of value to particular families? Is it not important that these contributions will frequently go far beyond the benefit level that the mothers have been enjoying and, therefore, the narrow view of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meecher) is not the key point to the mothers concerned?
§ Mr. NewtonThere will certainly be some cases in which the effective establishment of maintenance will obviate the need for income support but, as I have already said, it is my guess that the greater effect—certainly in terms of numbers—will be to provide a firmer platform on the basis of which lone parents can move into work with confidence should they wish to do so. Whichever is the case, and whatever the precise numbers turn out to be—we are talking about behavioural effects, which are difficult to measure with precision—I am sure that the parents involved will gain.
§ Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South)May I press the Minister on the question of women and children who are attempting to escape from a physically violent relationship with the man in the family or from mental torture by him? The Secretary of State has not made it clear enough how women and children will be protected from harassment and danger. He ought to acknowledge to the House the fact that it is for the woman and children themselves to judge whether they need to be protected from the man. The new agency will claim the right to intervene in that very private relationship. What safeguards will be introduced to ensure that women and children are not left open to more violence and harassment—the exact reasons why they got rid of the man in the first place?
§ Mr. NewtonJust as with the present system, cases in which violence occurs or is threatened in the way that the hon. Lady suggests will be a matter for agencies other than the Department of Social Security—most obviously, the police. The officers employed by the Child Support Agency will need to examine carefully all the circumstances, including any record of threats of the kind to which the 740 hon. Lady has referred, in assessing whether or not the attitude of a lone parent is reasonable in a particular case. If the hon. Lady thinks about it, she will realise that there is no other way in which such a system could work.
§ Sir David Price (Eastleigh)On the continuing problem of the enforcement of maintenance orders, will the new Child Support Agency have the powers and trained staff to chase up delinquent fathers who persistently fail to pay maintenance? Can my right hon. Friend reassure mothers that there will be a higher level of payments than at present?
§ Mr. NewtonI can certainly give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he seeks, and on every calculation and expectation that we have, the net result of the proposals will be to increase considerably the average maintenance payment and the number of those receiving maintenance.
§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn)The Secretary of State will accept that there will be a general welcome for the fact that maintenance payments involving children will no longer be the responsibility of the courts, given that the existing arrangements have caused great anxiety to mothers and have created great bitterness between mothers and fathers in relation not only to maintenance but to access.
It is clear that the distinction will be helpful and the Secretary of State will accept that there will be a general welcome for the fact that the courts will no longer be responsible for the setting of maintenance orders in particular. But I am still worried about enforcement and, having had a brief look at the contents of the White Paper, I confess that I do not find the new proposals very imaginative. There is nothing new there. The agency will simply do the kind of work that the courts have unfortunately failed to do in the past. What new enforcement initiatives will there be to ensure more payments by fathers who at present absolve themselves of responsibility?
§ Mr. NewtonWhat is new about the proposals is not the detail of the powers but the fact that, for the first time, instead of having a wide variety of agencies—notably the courts and the Department of Social Security—doing different things in different ways, we shall have a single agency dedicated to the purpose and with the staff to do the job.
§ Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford)Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great strengths of his proposals is that they will allow consistency of treatment as between families? Does he accept that one of the factors that ensures that people obey the law is that they know clearly where they stand, and that he should therefore take every step to publicise the proposals so that people know where they stand in relation to their children?
§ Mr. NewtonI very much agree with my hon. Friend. Let me give an example which is to be found in the White Paper or the supporting documents. In two cases that were apparently similar in terms of obligation and income, one father ended up paying £5 a week and another ended up paying £50 a week. That cannot be defended.
§ Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)The Secretary of State will be aware that Hackney has one of the largest number of single-parent families in the country, more than 17,000. They, in 741 common with millions of other women struggling to bring up children in poverty, will have been dismayed by the facetious way in which some Conservative Members treated this subject this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They would have expected the matter to have been treated more seriously by Conservative Members.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposal to dock women's benefit by 20 per cent. if they will not name the father will cause great fear to millions of woman? If a women's partner is violent or a drug abuser, she will feel that she must choose between her personal safety and losing a large slice of her tiny income.
Is the Minister aware that many people outside this place believe that, if the Government were seriously interested in helping single parents to struggle out of poverty, they would address training, subsidised child care and above all, a proper level of child benefit?
§ Mr. NewtonThere are three points there. First, I must state that I detected no element of facetiousness in the responses from my hon. Friends or, indeed, in those made by Opposition Members during these exchanges.
Secondly, I have already said a fair amount about the 20 per cent. Millions of women cannot conceivably have anything to fear from the proposal, given that the great majority, as I have said, co-operate in any event with efforts to trace the father and collect maintenance.
Finally, with regard to training, when the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to consider the White Paper, she will see that we want to do what we can to ensure that training services are properly geared to the needs of lone parents, especially those who wish to return to the labour market. However, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is much better that these matters should be taken out of the courts, where there is vast delay and a great deal of trauma involved? Does he also agree that it is highly acceptable that this is, as he said, a platform for working towards independence for women, but most of all it will enable children of the first family to share in the father's prosperity in a way that they cannot at the moment? That is good for them and it is not bad for the father.
§ Mr. NewtonI hope that it will not be taken as facetious if I thank my hon. Friend and state that I can hardly believe my good fortune in having her praise heaped upon me twice in a week.
§ Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West)May I ask the Secretary of State about a detail on the assessment of incomes? Is it not the case that the whole issue of housing costs is proving to be a quagmire for the Government because the phrase "reasonable housing costs" is used in the White Paper, yet in practice, the housing costs might be much higher? If housing costs constitute 30 per cent. of a low income, if that factor is not got right, the proposals might push families into greater poverty. What does the Minister assume to be "reasonable" housing costs?
§ Mr. NewtonThey will all vary from case to case. The examples in the White Paper, which I hope are helpful in illustrating what is happening in the calculations, 742 necessarily had to choose ballpark figures. The whole point of using terms like "reasonable" in that context is that there will be circumstances, for example mainly in the southern parts of the country, where "reasonable" housing costs are higher than in other parts of the country because of the general cost of housing. We shall try to take account of that. We do not want to have a position in which someone can deliberately house himself extravagantly as a means of avoiding a maintenance bill.
§ Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcements this afternoon are very welcome? However, will he reassure the House that in the new spirit of co-operation within the European Community, there will be an ability to track down European Community fathers resident in this country and also people from this country resident elsewhere in the Community, so that the agency can execute its plans?
§ Mr. NewtonI certainly hope that, in the area covered by the proposals that I have announced this afternoon—in which I think that we are ahead of most of our Community partners—we shall benefit from the general improvement in European co-operation.
§ Mrs. Rosie Barnes (Greenwich)I broadly welcome the proposals. Not only is it absolutely right that absent fathers should make a contribution to their children's welfare; it is imperative that lone parents should be able to work to achieve their independence. However, I hope that the £15 disregard is only the first step, bearing in mind the current cost of child care.
I should like to press the Secretary of State further on the question of women possibly being intimidated, so that they will not reveal the name of their child's father. Can he tell us what stringent steps may be considered to prevent a father from carrying out such intimidation? It is important both to protect the woman and child, and to ensure that an artificial threat of violence is not used to enable a father to keep quiet and not be brought to the enforcing agency's attention.
§ Mr. NewtonOn the latter question, the hon. Lady has given one good indication of why it would not be sensible for me to make the kind of sweeping statement for which I was asked earlier by certain hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches. It could easily provide—quite apart from the mother—the absent father with an opportunity to evade maintenance. The essential answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question—as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has reminded me—is that any threat or actual intimidation is a criminal offence, and a matter for the police.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)Will my right hon. Friend accept that, as well as a welcome for his approach to the matter, there should be a general welcome in the country for the tone and language that he has used? He is dealing with sensitive matters affecting families under great stress, who are sometimes in great poverty. Will he also pass on to his colleagues who have helped to create this approach, and to staff in the courts and the DSS, the gratitude of 650 Members of Parliament for the work they do every week in coping with the financial needs of people who are often in considerable difficulty?
§ Mr. NewtonI am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a point that perhaps I should have 743 made—that, underlying these substantial proposals has been a huge effort not only by officials in my Department—although that has certainly been huge—hut by officials in a range of Departments across Whitehall. It has been a very effective collaborative effort, the results of which have, I believe, made it worth while.
§ Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston)Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, when he talks of this being a matter for the police, that some women experience enormous difficulty in obtaining injunctions and having them enforced? At the weekend, I was dealing with a lady in my constituency who has been repeatedly kicked about the head but cannot get her injunction enforced. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why, if the majority of women co-operate in seeking maintenance, he insists on compulsion for the minority who may have good reason to resist?
§ Mr. NewtonI would almost turn round the hon. Lady's last point. The more that the great majority think it reasonable to co-operate—and, indeed, do co-operate—the less proper it is simply to allow others not to co-operate, without good reason. As for her earlier point, the hon. Lady will be aware that the problems of dealing with domestic violence are not exactly new, and certainly have not been precipitated by the White Paper. The Home Office issued a circular early in the year encouraging the police to take much more interest in such matters, because this is a long-running problem that needs firmer action.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by the millions of caring parents who do take responsibility for their children, and who recognise that the hallmark of a responsible society is individual's taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Will my right hon. Friend consider a further suggestion, perhaps with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—the introduction of nursery vouchers for lone parents, who at present find that they are at a great disadvantage? They are having problems in getting their children educated before the age of five, and are thus handicapped in trying to find work.
§ Mr. NewtonI am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will note my hon. Friend's proposal. For my part, I believe that the right course is the one on which we have embarked—with better earnings disregards this month—which will be extended through the introduction of the maintenance disregard. That will improve the position of lone parents generally, and help them to meet work expenses—whether in the form of child-care costs or, for instance, travel costs.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)Does the Secretary of State accept that, as his proposals are contained in a booklet called "Children Come First", the reservations that have been drawn to his attention, by hon. Ladies in particular, are because of our concern about children and the caring parent, who invariably is the mother? Therefore, will he explain why he regards it as a clear obligation on caring parents who are in receipt of family credit or income support to have to use the services of the proposed agency, as they are invariably the most vulnerable sections within our society? What steps will be taken to observe the total confidentiality of all such parents who are obliged to use the agency service? They are women who are subjected to 744 domestic violence and to other threats. The confidentiality aspect must be dealt with in any legislation that is brought forward.
§ Mr. NewtonI do not think that I can add to what I said about the reason for thinking it right that those in receipt of benefits—whereas I said that the public can be seen to have an interest—should have to use the services of the agency. The hon. Lady may be labouring under a slight misapprehension in some respects. Many lone parents within the existing system much prefer the DSS to take over their maintenance orders, to do the work, and to go through the hassle of collecting maintenance than have to do it themselves. I see no reason why that role should not be enhanced rather than diminished under my proposals.
§ Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)Making irresponsible fathers act responsibly towards the families whom they have created is entirely to be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend please remind the House of the time scale within which the reforms will be implemented? Bearing in mind that the need to know the name of the father is an important point in the success of the reforms, will my right hon. Friend confirm the proportion of names that are obtained now easily, correctly and satisfactorily?
§ Mr. NewtonOf course, it is not always possible to get a name, but often indications can be given that will help a well-organised agency to trace the person in question. We hope that the formula will start to apply within the existing system—the courts and the DSS—some time in the early part of 1992 and that the agency will be up and running in the course of 1993. As I said, it will be some time—perhaps two to three years—before it will be able to take on all existing cases.
§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)I welcome this statement as underlining what should be axiomatic from the concept of fatherhood being for life—that the state, often unwittingly and with the best motives, has undermined traditional notions of parental responsibility in terms of access and support. Will my right hon. Friend go right to the heart of the matter and to what should be our primary concern, and explain how the statement benefits children?
§ Mr. NewtonIt will benefit children, first, by ensuring that maintenance is paid when it is currently not being paid or that more adequate maintenance is paid. Secondly, it will remove a great deal—I have used the word "hassle" several times, and I shall use it again—of the hassle of confrontation between separating parents, to which the present system can give rise. Thirdly, and perhaps as important as anything else, the statement will help by providing the caring parent with a better basis on which to build her own independence and, therefore, that of the child.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Viggers.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)That is the third time from that side.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have called Mr. Viggers, but I must balance it up.
§ Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)May I also welcome these thoughtful and sensitive proposals? All hon. Members know how often the sadness of separation is followed by the humiliation of the woman having to pursue the father 745 for money for herself and for the children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has done today is important? He has turned back an erosion of principles that has pervaded the past few decades during which there has been a growing feeling that the state is responsible for individuals. In fact, parents are responsible for their children, and they cannot walk away from their responsibility.
§ Mr. NewtonI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope that we have gone some way towards re-establishing a principle that is accepted by everyone, which is that parents have a responsibility which cannot simply be cast aside.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)What savings is the Secretary of State hoping to make in the third, fourth and fifth years? Why could not those savings be used to help the single-parent families who are living in considerable poverty in this country and some second families who are in acute hardship because of maintenance payments?
§ Mr. NewtonVery roughly, we think that, in the first couple of years, there will probably be additional expenditure of between £100 million and £150 million on setting up the agency and making the benefit improvements to which I have referred. Even allowing for that, there will then be a net benefits saving of more than £50 million in the third year, which will build up over a long period to a sum significantly greater than that.
§ Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)When it is devised, will the formula be sufficiently flexible to take into account, for example, a person being responsible for another person's poll tax; a person being responsible, in some cases, for school fees which are voluntary; and the fact that, if someone is living in a large house before the problems occur, a huge lump sum has been paid to the carer on separation? Will the Secretary of State also take into account the fact that, because of a second relationship, the carer may sometimes be well off when the father of the children is not?
§ Mr. NewtonI said earlier that some of these matters—including, for example, property settlements—will necessarily remain a matter for the courts. However, as far as possible, we shall seek to ensure that, where any modification of the maintenance arrangements flows from that, it is carried out according to clear and certain rules.
§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)The Secretary of State will realise that he has had two or perhaps two and a half cheers from Opposition Members about his statement. On at least three or four occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has said that the agency will have enough staff to do the job, but he must be aware of the damning report which was published earlier this year by the National Audit Office, dealing with support for lone parents, which disclosed that the "liable relative" section staff of his Department have been cut by one third in the past eight years and that those are the very civil servants with the job of chasing up fathers to ensure that maintenance is paid. Where is the guarantee that the 746 agency will have sufficient staff to do the job and that there will not be any further cuts that will place a burden on lone parents?
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman about lone parents' ability to work'? I forewarned him of this at business questions last Thursday. Although the report has not yet been published, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, earlier this year, in the Public Accounts Committee his own chief civil servant said on no fewer than six occasions that the responsibility for the changes of policy which had, in effect, made it more difficult for lone parents to go out to work were all ministerial changes. They were not changes made by the Department; they were policy decisions. Where is the evidence in today's statement that the Government have learnt the lessons of the changes that they made when they removed child-care costs from income support—although they had been included in supplementary benefit—which would genuinely enable lone parents to get out into the labour market again?
§ Mr. NewtonSince there is no very good evidence that the supplementary benefit arrangements were widely understood or widely used, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Obviously, the exchanges to which the hon. Gentleman referred have been reported to me and, equally obviously, I readily accept that changes in policy are matters for Ministers, not civil servants.
On staffing, I repeat the point that I have made once or twice already. Not the least gain from all this is that the staff involved in this area—the same is true of the staff who are involved with national insurance contributions and compliance in our offices—will now be part of a separate distinct agency, purpose-built for the one task. That will make it much less likely that, unlike in the past, insufficient priority will be given to that work in the future.
§ Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on responding to the wishes of the many single parents who wish to resume some form of work, and on the changes that he has made to the family credit arrangements? How many people will the changes benefit in terms of enabling them to come off income support? Finally, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that there is widespread uptake of the enhanced family credit arrangements?
§ Mr. NewtonAs with family credit, under the present arrangements we shall try to bring the provisions to people's attention in every possible way. We have had a good deal of success. Give or take the uncertainties of behavourial effects, we estimate that between 50,000 and 75,000 lone parents will find it possible to move into work as a result of these proposals.
§ Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)Is the Secretary of State aware that the public are interested in primarily two issues relating to this matter, one of which is that absentee fathers should face their responsibility—there is no difference between us on that? The second concern—I put this matter to the Prime Minister in a question last Session—is: who will benefit—the Chancellor or the child? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked the Prime Minister that, she said that the benefit would go to the child and the mother? In the light of that, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Treasury will gain from 747 this move from the third year onwards? Will he also confirm that single mothers who stay at home will not gain at all from these measures?
§ Mr. NewtonI am becoming increasingly resistant to the way in which Opposition Members talk about "the Treasury" as if it were somehow disembodied from all the people in the country. When the hon. Gentleman talks about "the Treasury", he means the taxpayer.
§ Mr. Newton"The taxpayer" includes many families in which the parents are working to bring up their children, often on modest incomes. I see no reason why we should ignore their interests in all this.
§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents will welcome the fact that financial responsibility is being returned firmly to the childrens' parents? May I suggest that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues might consider broadening the use of the Child Support Agency in the long run into a number of other areas, such as housing? I have a number of violent husbands—[Laughter.]—who continue to occupy council houses, whose wives are either unable or unwilling—understandably—to pursue them through the courts. Many of those women and their children would benefit greatly if this arrangement were extended to housing.
§ Mr. NewtonIn so far as financial payments for whatever purposes are concerned, it is clear that everything that I have announced today will contribute to easing the problems that concern my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)Will the Secretary of State accept that it is the daily reality of the Scottish courts that the issue of access is normally linked to aliment, and will he take account of that? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many of the people who go to these lengths to avoid payment feel the greatest bitterness, and will he therefore accept the pleas made by hon. Members of all parties not to pressurise women into pursuing these people on pain of penalty? Finally, will the collection agency collect on behalf of women who are in work, as well as women who are on benefit, and if not, is not that a disincentive to going out to work?
§ Mr. NewtonThe agency will be ready to collect on behalf of anybody who wishes to use it. When I said that using the agency would be a requirement for those on certain benefits, I also made it clear that parents in other cases who wished to use the agency would be free to do so. I do not accept the terminology used by the hon. Gentleman or words such as "pressurise". On that front, I cannot add to what I said earlier.
§ Mr. Tony BanksIs the Secretary of State aware that, unless he is a little more forthcoming about what constitute "reasonable grounds", it will appear to Opposition Members that the agency's role will be more to save money than to give first consideration to the welfare of the child? Surely the right hon. Gentleman has been impressed by the arguments made by hon. Members of all parties and by the fact that there is genuine concern that mothers who have separated from violent partners are the very people about whom we should he most concerned, 748 because they will be the most reluctant to give the name of their partner? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that point very much in mind?
Finally, what arrangements are being made to achieve reciprocal arrangements with other Governments? Many partners leave this country and go to other parts of the world, but, as far as I can tell, under these provisions it will be difficult for the agency to make a claim. What steps are the Government taking to make some reciprocal arrangements?
§ Mr. NewtonObviously, I shall explore the possibilities on the last point that the hon. Gentleman raised. On his earlier point, I hope that it will be of some encouragement to him that the estimates that I have given include no estimated saving from the proposal for a possible 20 per cent. deduction. We do not expect it to have a massive saving effect. It is simply an appropriate provision to avoid unreasonable non-co-operation. I am reluctant to be drawn in the direction that the hon. Gentleman asks because it would all too easily provide any husband with an easy let-out. He would simply have to make a particular threat.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have now had an opportunity to send for the extract from Hansard. I find that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said:
Some of the children are yours.That appears to be a reflection on me—[Laughter.]—but I take it to be a reflection on the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). He subsequently said:A remarkable allegation was made, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—all the more remarkable, I suspect, to my wife than to me—that I have sired illegitimate children. To the best of my knowledge, I have not.
§ Mr. SpeakerI now say to the hon. Lady that that was undoubtedly an unparliamentary allegation. I ask her to withdraw it so that we may get on.
§ Ms. ShortI dispute the words that you read out from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, as I have informed the Editor of Hansard. Therefore, as I did not utter the words, I am happy to withdraw them. For the record, several Conservative Members were saying, "Why shouldn't women name the man?" I was pointing to them as a series of men, not to any one of them. I was saying that the implication for men was that they might find themselves named in such circumstances. That was my point, and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) knows very well that I was not talking about him in particular.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis just goes to show—it has taken rather a lot of time—that comments of that nature from a sedentary position do not help the House.
§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the altercation earlier, the words that you read out about my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow were not in dispute. The altercation between you and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was about an allegation against all Conservative Members. You requested a withdrawal, but none has been made. I ask you to press that point.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe extract that I read from Hansard is what was actually said. I am prepared to accept that the remark has been withdrawn. We now move on——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. One day the hon. Gentleman may find himself in this Chair but while I am here, will he please allow me to deal with the matter?
§ Mr. HoltFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you wish to be fair to the House. Being fair to the House means being fair not only to the hon. Member for Ladywood but to all the men on this side of the House. You read out what you wanted to read out, as far as it went. But the rest of the allegation against Conservative Members was further on in Hansard. I am sure that you are aware of that.
§ Mr. SpeakerAs a matter of fact, I am not, because I have only one sheet from Hansard which has taken some time to be brought to me. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed.