§ 12. Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)If he will make a statement on his proposals for reform of the Child Support Agency. [107199]
§ The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling)The Bill that gives effect to our proposed reforms of the child support scheme is being discussed in Standing Committee. We are on course to start the new system in 2002.
§ Mr. HowarthThe overwhelming number of CSA cases in my constituency involves men who are very happy to contribute to the maintenance of children from their first marriage, but who find it extremely difficult to meet the agency's demands. Given that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said in October that 190,000 absent parents—in most cases, that means the fathers—are likely to face higher assessments under the Government's proposals, does the Secretary of State share my concern that such proposals will lead to much greater stress and further suicidal tendencies among some fathers, while the feckless escape into the night?
§ Mr. DarlingMost assessments will in fact be lower and, as the changes that we are introducing will be phased in, both families will have some time to adjust to any vastly different settlement. I agree that difficulty arises because fathers must sometimes wait months before they find out how much they are supposed to be paying, and when they get the bill it is very often much more than they can afford, and that naturally leads to great tension. Under the new, simplified system that we are introducing, it will be possible to calculate in days, not months, how much a father—it is usually the father—will have to pay, so payments will flow far more quickly. We should not lose sight of the fact that, as a result, up to 1 million children will gain, and that must be a good thing.
§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)Does the Secretary of State not realise that an arbitrary, formulaic system is ineffectual and that each family's circumstances are different? To criminalise those who withhold payment will surely lead to them absconding and going into hiding. If, ultimately, the sanction of jail is invoked, how will that help their earning prospects or make it easier for them to look after their children?
§ Mr. DarlingThere are two points. First, the simplified formula makes it possible to calculate quickly—within days—the amount due. Anyone who has children knows that it is difficult to calculate down to the last penny how much children cost, or how much should be paid when two people are living together. We consulted widely on the new simplified formula and it has been widely welcomed. Very few people suggested that we should retain the present system. Some suggested that we should go to the courts, but most people think that the simplified formula is better.
18 Secondly, there is a fundamental point of principle involved: an absent parent has a duty to support his or her child. There is no getting away from that, and I make no apology for the fact that we propose that the persistent minority of people who refuse to live up to their obligations ought to be punished. They should be supporting their children—they should not expect somebody else to do it. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should defend people who refuse to pay for their children.