Child Support (Hansard, 31 January 1994)

§ 4. Mr. Wicks
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much child support is estimated to be collected in 1993–94; and what proportion of this will represent a net increase in incomes for one-parent families.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt)
The amount of child support maintenance originally estimated to be collected is £530 million. The actual amount will be lower, but it is not possible to provide an accurate revised figure, since the full impact of the proposed policy changes is not yet known. Similarly, it is not, therefore, possible to estimate the proportion of this amount which will represent a net increase to lone parents.
It is important to remember, however, that all maintenance paid is of benefit to lone parents as it forms an income that can be used as a stepping stone back to work.

§ Mr. Wicks
Is not it the case that only £1 or so out of every £10 goes to improve the living standards of mothers with children? Therefore, is not it the case that the vast bulk of the money goes to the Treasury, and that in reality we have not a Child Support Act, but an Exchequer Support Act? Does the Minister accept that those of us who support the decent principle of parental responsibility will now need to defend the measure against the bad practice that is undermining that principle? Will he reform the measure to ensure that the vast proportion of money goes through to mothers with children, and that we have in reality a Child Support Act?

§ Mr. Burt
There are two points to be made. First, if the hon. Gentleman had read the Select Committee report, he would have seen that it found it a perfectly worthwhile objective of the agency from the start to seek to recover payments to support the taxpayer. The report states: The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenances bills that should have been met by absent parents. That is the intention behind the legislation.
The second, and equally important, point to make is that establishing a maintenance payment early, even if there is not an immediate pound-for-pound benefit, is important. Most lone parents want to go back to work, and they find that what stops them from doing so is not having an income such as maintenance being available from an early date. There was no advantage in their getting that before, but now they can establish that early link of maintenance. When they go back into work as their children get older, maintenance will have been established and that will be an important factor.

§ Mr. Congdon
Does my hon. Friend agree that many taxpayers will be pleased to see that the responsibilities are being passed on to absent fathers under this welcome legislation? Does he also agree that it would be more helpful if sections of the media spent less time concentrating on the problems of absent fathers, and more time exposing the benefits to the mothers who are left bringing up the children on their own?

§ Mr. Burt
One or two cases are now coming through in the media—there have been a couple today—showing how the CSA can work to the advantage of mothers. There has been an over-concentration on the other side. The media also tend to fail to bring out the fact that in 96 per cent. of all cases in which the CSA is involved, benefit is being paid to the parent with care of the child. That means that, whatever the income or circumstances of the absent parent, the parent with care has been left dependent on everyone else and on the taxpayer. The agency was set up so that it could seek to relieve that burden on taxpayers. We are all happy to pay for children when no one else can, but we all want to ensure that parents live up to their responsibilities.

§ 5. Mr. Kevin Hughes
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what responses he has received to the proposed changes to the child support regulations announced on 22 December.

§ Mr. Burt
I have continued to receive correspondence from hon. Members and from the public since the proposed changes were announced. The responses cover a wide range of views.

§ Mr. Hughes
In considering the correspondence that he has received, has the Minister been made aware of the breaches in confidentiality that the CSA has recently made? Is he worried, as I am, about confidential information being given to ex-partners about income and whereabouts? I have one constituent who is now being pestered by an ex-partner because information was leaked to him by the CSA. I fear, and I hope that the Minister shares my fear, that violence could be introduced into a situation following such leaks of information. Will he put an immediate stop to those breaches of personal liberties?

§ Mr. Burt
Like everyone else, the agency operates under the Data Protection Act 1988. Making available information about income is a vital part of what is done. It was done in the courts previously, when the only way to ascertain how much the other party had so as to determine the amount of maintenance was affidavit. There was free transfer of that information. That goes on now and is covered by the Data Protection Act. Whereabouts should not be released. Where that happens, it is wrong. I will take steps to ensure that it does not happen.

§ Mr. Burns
Does my hon. Friend accept that it is premature to prejudge the effects of the changes that he announced just before Christmas in a swift response to the anxieties expressed in the Select Committee report? Can he give an assurance that once the regulations are in operation, if it is seen that there are still problems—for example, commuter fares within the home counties are a significant monthly expenditure—his Department will be prepared, as part of on-going monitoring, to look again at such problems?

§ Mr. Burt
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the policy remained under review. That was always our purpose from the outset. However, I suggest to my hon. Friend that he looks carefully at what the Select Committee said in response to my evidence to it on specific expenses. The desire was to ensure that a certain proportion of income remained with the absent parent. What was an important expense to one was not necessarily an important expense to another. Simply to list a series of expenses that might be appropriate to absent 608 parents would run the risk of driving the priority of maintenance to the child back down to where it was under the previous system. That is why we preferred to go for the system that we have now. That explanation was accepted by the Select Committee.

§ Mr. Rooney
In drafting the proposed changes, which will be debated soon, and recognising that the assessment of absent parents' income is based on net income, are we to assume that every case will be reassessed following the massive tax increases on 1 April, when all absent parents' income will fall?

§ Mr. Burt
It remains open to any party to seek review of the assessment if there has been a change of circumstances. It should be made clear that that form of assistance was not available under the previous system, under which it was much more difficult to obtain a review. The continual raising of the position of the absent parent ignores the importance of the whole system to parents with care of children. It is important that the Government make sure that there is a balance. That is what the Child Support Act 1991 set out to do. Far too many complaints and concerns are raised by people who do not understand the importance of ensuring that parents with care of children receive adequate, regular and reliable maintenance. That did not happen before.

§ Mr. Sykes
Will my hon. Friend ignore the carping from Opposition Members and instead congratulate the Child Support Agency on pursuing errant fathers who have no intention of facing up to their responsibilities and prefer the rest of us to pick up the tab?

§ Mr. Burt
A less well-known fact about the Child Support Agency is that, unlike the previous system, it has a tracing function. In the past, when full information about an absent parent could not be given, that parent used to go completely to ground, leaving the burden on all the other taxpayers and leaving a parent to care for the child without any support. We now have a system whereby he or she can be traced and about 15,000 have been found, which represents a 90 per cent. success rate. I should have thought that that would merit some support from Opposition Members.

§ Mr. Dewar
Do Ministers really argue that the possibility of a disregard should not even be on the agenda for discussion or be examined in the context of present discontents? I have argued precisely that on a number of occasions and that argument was also put forcefully by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its latest report. Has the Minister considered the Australian precedent of introducing a review officer who, in certain defined circumstances, can order a departure from the normal financial formula if that is justified by exceptional circumstances? Will he take it from me that a large number of hon. Members feel that if the present package—due to come before us on Wednesday—is seen as the final word, the system will forfeit public confidence in the most damaging way and also that every system needs a safety net, which has not yet been provided?

§ Mr. Burt
The point about the review that the hon. Gentleman recommends is that the Australian system is completely different from ours; it is much more incomplete and far more rough and ready and the right of appeal is not available to everyone. He is asking us to 609 substitute a much more imperfect system merely to give a relatively small number of people the opportunity to appeal.
On the second point, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the disregard that the hon. Gentleman suggests does not relieve the absent parent from any burden, but it increases the burden on the taxpayer by however much he wants to include in the disregard. The hon. Gentleman is reputed to have suggested about £340 million for that sort of payment. I notice that he has not responded to the challenge offered to my right hon. Friend.
Can the House take it that the hon. Gentleman is giving a pledge in the House?

§ Mr. Dewar
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Burt
I find myself in some confusion if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to say something inside the House but not to stand by the pledge. The House and the whole country will have noticed his shifty nature.

§ Mr. Bates
Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest scandal to be brought to light by the work of the Child Support Agency is that 660,000 of the first 1 million cases involved an absent parent who was not paying one penny in contributions towards their children? Will he ensure that, whatever the changes proposed, they will not affect his and the Child Support Agency's ability to tackle the greatest of all injustices?

§ Mr. Burt
It has been a concern to those who have been paying and asked to pay more that the agency is seen to be going after only that group of people. In referring to the expected number of cases taken on by the end of the first year, of which about two thirds of a million will be people who have not paid any maintenance, my hon. Friend seeks to redress that argument. It is clear that we are determined to ensure that those people who have not been paying towards the care of their children do so and that is a good reason why the agency should continue with its work.