PRIORITY COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE (Hansard, 29 March 2000)

§ Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Madam Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Deduction of earnings orders— '.—There shall be substituted for section 31(3) of the Child Support Act 1991 the following— (3) A deduction of earnings order shall be made so as to secure the payment both of arrears of child support maintenance payable under the maintenance calculation and amounts of child support maintenance which will become due.".'.
Amendment No. 89, in clause 16, page 14, line 41, at end insert— '(1A) After section 39A of the 1991 Act there shall be inserted— .—(1) In either of the circumstances mentioned in section 39A(1) the magistrates' court may of its own motion order such of the measures mentioned in (2) as it thinks fit. (2) The measures mentioned in (1) are—
(a) an order that any welfare benefits that the liable person is in receipt of at the time of the application be reduced by such amount as the Court thinks fit;

(b) a warrant of execution in respect of any goods owned by the liable person;
348
(c) a home detention curfew of like effect to an order as could be made under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or;

(d) a community service order.
(3) When making an application under section 39A the Secretary of State shall provide to the magistrates' court a statement setting out which welfare benefits the liable person is in receipt of and the amounts thereof.".'.
Government amendment No. 40.
Amendment No. 76, in clause 19, page 20, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
'(i) a maximum of 20 per cent. of any relevant benefit received by the parent for the first six months;

(ii) a maximum of 10 per cent. of any relevant benefit received by the parent for a remaining twelve months;
and the maximum period, without possibility of extension, is eighteen months.'.

§ Mr. Pickles
I am sorry. I nearly got to my feet when the order of consideration motion was moved formally, Madam Speaker. Members nearly had the opportunity to hear my speech twice.
These matters relate to enforcement. We are here to help the Government to meet their straightforward promises. The other night, I had the pleasure of seeing the Minister of State in the Lobby. He asked whether I had been reading any interesting books with which I might entertain the House. Indeed I have. I had the opportunity to read a Labour party document that was first published in October 1996, entitled "Children First: Reforming Child Support". It is pretty thin on plot, but it is the progenitor of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. Given that I am also interested in the cinema, I could say that if that document was the novel, the Bill is the screenplay. As in most cases, there is a considerable difference between the novel and the screenplay. We want to go back to the Labour party's original proposals.
The document makes the following clear statement: We will insist that the agency reaches demanding targets to protect taxpayers' interests. We would all applaud that. It continues: Our initial target will be to ensure that an additional 100,000 absent parents pay maintenance. That is exactly what new clause 4 seeks to achieve and would be in the interests of the Child Support Agency.
When the Bill becomes law, two systems will operate concurrently. Tonight, we shall be asked to approve a system that will force parents to make payments that we consider to be essentially unfair, as the old system will operate side by side with the new one. The true beneficiaries—not the intended ones—will therefore be those who have paid nothing. We want to ensure that those who have made and continue to make contributions are not made out to be mugs. Parents who have obeyed the law and sought to meet their obligations must not be placed at a disadvantage compared with those who have attempted to evade their responsibilities. New clause 4 seeks to wipe the smiles off the faces of parents who have not taken financial responsibility for their children.
I quote with approval the document "Children First: Reforming Child Support" which states: We start with the basic principle that parents, not the taxpayer should have the main responsibility for supporting their children. 349 Parents who bring children into the world must accept that they have a responsibility. They have an obligation to look after their child until adulthood and to support that child financially.
Amendment No. 89 deals with curfew orders and other matters. On Second Reading there was a certain amount of criticism from all parts of the House of the Government's proposals to take away people's driving licences if they committed an offence under the Bill. Not a single speech—not even from the most loyal Back Bencher—said that that was a good idea. There was an earlier suggestion that people's passports should be taken away also, but that idea has been dropped from the Bill, perhaps owing to the mess in the UK Passport Agency. The Minister of State, Home Office might have ended up taking away everyone's passport. I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) once receiving a briefing about the Medellin cartel, a drugs cartel that operates in Colombia. Someone in one of the five accountancy firms used by the cartel was leaking information about the cartel. The cartel could not work out which accountant was leaking, so it decided to execute all five of the accountants involved in its affairs. Although I am sure that, whatever we may think of our accountants, we all agree that that was an overreaction, the point is that the Government seem to be diminishing the value of removing passports as a penalty by failing to issue them initially.
The problem with the Bill is that it provides for no penalties other than a fine and/or imprisonment and loss of driving licence. Amendment No. 89 provides new penalties, thereby allowing flexibility. The amendment is essentially similar to an amendment that I tabled in Committee—I see the Minister nodding vigorously. That amendment briefly took her fancy—she thought that it might be a good idea—until she got back to the Department, where it was discussed. I received a nice note back saying that it was not the Government's policy to make such a provision. I shall come back to that matter in a few moments, because I think that the Government are making a mistake. Our proposal would provide flexibility.
The proposal to remove driving licences has been heavily criticised. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, Mr. Jonathan Simpson of the RAC makes four principal criticisms of the proposal. I shall summarise the points, as it would be tedious to read them out. He says that there has always been a case for disqualifying motorists as a penalty for motoring offences such as dangerous or bad driving. Such a penalty is directly related to the offence, and is therefore obviously justifiable and acceptable in the eyes of the public. However, as the RAC points out, failure to comply with a maintenance order is an entirely different matter. The RAC is concerned that the application of the penalty in maintenance cases will be the beginning of a slippery slope, and that the penalty will in future be applied to various non-driving offences. The RAC goes as far as to suggest that a motorist could face disqualification for dropping litter.
The RAC also believes that removing someone's driving licence could end that person's ability to earn a living. Not unreasonably, the RAC concludes that application of the penalty could reduce those people's 350 prospects of being able to make regular maintenance payments. If people cannot commute to work or perform their duties at work because they no longer have a driving licence, their ability to provide reasonable sums will be diminished.
The RAC makes another suggestion, for which I have no sympathy. It says that the provision may well cause an increase in the number of those who drive a motor car while disqualified. That may or may not be true. However, I do not think that such a possibility is a valid reason for suggesting that the provision should not be made.
We criticise the provision quite simply because it lacks flexibility. Additionally, it seems ridiculous to place on the same level the penalty of loss of driving licence and the penalty of fine and/or imprisonment. The Bill makes loss of licence an alternative to imprisonment, not an addition to it.
Our proposal extends the range of available penalties. We are praying in aid the Prime Minister's suggestion that electronic tagging should be extended to domestic violence and stalking offenders. Frankly, it is a natural extension to apply the measure to the Child Support Agency to get getting people into the habit of paying and acting responsibly.
An article on 7 September in "Justice of the Peace" asked whether it was necessary or desirable to keep an offender away from undesirable associates at, for example, football matches, rallies or clubs. Essentially, the proposal is for a curfew order: we are saying that someone will not be able to go to football on a Saturday afternoon, pour their earnings down their throats or go clubbing at the weekend. The offender's first call will be his child maintenance payments. The article asked also whether the offender indulged in irresponsible leisure activities.
The proposal is part of an established pattern of getting people to accept their responsibilities. The Minister has said that the Government do not want to start mixing criminal and civil sanctions, and that they would not table an amendment to that effect. I am used to accepting disappointments, but the House will be disappointed too.

§ Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)
Amendment No. 89 states that the court has the power to reduce the amount of benefit that someone may have to pay. The hon. Gentleman's intention is to get people to pay more, but his proposal effectively encourages people who want to put off paying, as they will always think that the magistrates court will bail them out in the end—particularly bearing in mind the fact that there is no provision in the amendment to allow the parent with care to make representations to the magistrates court. Is not the amendment effectively creating an appeal to the court through the back door?

§ Mr. Pickles
No, it is not. It is an attempt to make some sense of the Bill, and to offer the courts the opportunity of a wider range for breaches of sanction, other than imprisonment or a fine. After all, these matters would apply only where there was an application for default. This is not something that will arise in the normal course of events in which the parent with care and the non-resident parent discuss the financial future of their children. It will come into play where someone is in default. The amendment is not a way in which the 351 non-resident parent can apply through the back door. It gives the courts a greater degree of flexibility, and seeks to strike a balance and to ensure that someone gets into the habit of regular payment, gets back to a degree of social responsibility and recognises that the Child Support Agency is not a soft touch.
Under the legislation as drafted, people have a choice between losing their driving licences or going to jail. I suspect that most people will opt to lose their licences. After all, people who are not in the regular habit of using a motor vehicle might consider that to be a way of getting off scot free. We are seeking to achieve a balance.
The new clause is not set in stone, as it might not work exactly as we hope. It has been tabled to stimulate debate and to get the Minister to expand on her letter to me. However, I hope that she will accept that our intention is to extend the enforcement powers of the CSA, not to give people a way out by the back door.

§ Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)
The whole House wants the reform to work, so I am anxious to know what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. Does he mean to establish a menu of penalties that the CSA could use, or is he proposing that the CSA must take certain actions in certain circumstances?

§ Mr. Pickles
The right hon. Gentleman's first suggestion is what we want to achieve. We want to extend the menu of actions available to the CSA. At present, there are only the extremes of losing a driving licence or going to prison, with the option of a fine somewhere in the middle. We want a graduated scale. Clearly, curfew orders will not work unless there is a reasonable anticipation that the people involved will abide by them. However, the Government are researching ways to extend such orders beyond their original application, which was as a way to help offenders released on licence to prepare to return to society.
It is extremely sensible to take into consideration domestic violence and stalking.

§ Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford)
I have been listening to my hon. Friend extremely carefully. The new clauses rightly make suggestions about how to strengthen the encouragement given to people to pay child maintenance. However, I am slightly worried that there is another side to that coin, involving a parent who pays the maintenance but who does not have access to the children of the relationship. Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill should tackle that equally important issue?

§ Mr. Pickles
A later group of amendments deals with the relationship between the non-resident parent and the parent with care. However, my hon. Friend is right to express concern that the Bill might well cause children to find themselves caught between parents feuding over financial matters. The Bill draws questions of access and finance close together, and means that it could be in one party's financial interest to keep a child over on a Sunday evening and to take it back to school on the Monday, 352 rather than returning it to the other party on the Sunday night. My hon. Friend has made a valid point about access.

§ Mr. Field
Am I right in thinking that the Opposition are proposing to add to the range of measures that CSA officials would have at their disposal to enforce the legislation when it is enacted?

§ Mr. Pickles
The right hon. Gentleman is nearly right. Under the terms of amendment No. 87, CSA officials would have to apply to the court for enforcement of the proposed options. Excellent though the CSA is, anything else would be a step too far.
I commend the new clause and the amendment to the House.

§ Mr. Burns
I rise to support new clause 4. I should like to describe the criticism that I have heard most often in constituency surgeries over the past eight years or so, whatever the views on the Child Support Act 1991 and on the Government's reforms before us today. The parent who pays child maintenance and complies with the Child Support Agency's assessment feels that he is a soft target because he does not seek to hide his financial responsibilities, whereas, in the early days, an organised, hard-core group sought to bring the child maintenance system to a grinding halt through their obstruction of the operations of the original CSA and to avoid paying any child maintenance whatever.
New clause 4, which would strengthen the powers of the CSA, is eminently sensible. It would take away the sense of unfairness and special targeting felt by a group who do not want to cause trouble and want to make a financial contribution to their children's upbringing.

§ Mr. Dismore
I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. May I put a hypothetical question to him? What is the position of a person who pays £1 or £2 a week but is liable to pay considerably more and could therefore accrue substantial debts, as compared with a person who has to pay only a small amount in the first place and does not pay any? Which case does the hon. Gentleman think should be pursued first? The new clause suggests that the person to be pursued is the one paying nothing who has only a small amount to pay, whereas someone with a huge amount to pay could effectively avoid being caught by this proposal by paying a token amount.

§ Mr. Burns
The hon. Gentleman has raised a third issue. I was coming on to the issue of parents who pay. The person who pays nothing should be pursued because he is seeking to avoid all his financial responsibilities. Similarly, if an individual is playing the system at a minimal level to try to avoid his full financial responsibilities, he must also be pursued by the CSA.
The trouble with any legislation that contains an either/or option is that some people will seek to use the existing law to maximise their abuse of it, and we have here an example.

§ Mr. Pickles
rose—

§ Mr. Burns
If my hon. Friend wishes to tell us of another one, I shall give way to him with pleasure.

§ Mr. Pickles
I was merely going to suggest that that is one of the advantages of such a matter going before the 353 courts. The courts would take the view that such a person was attempting to get round the system. Someone who doles out £1 or £2 a week is playing around. That example further strengthens the need for the new clause.

§ Mr. Burns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have all had examples over the past eight or nine years of people who have played the system, or sought to play the system, to avoid their financial responsibilities.
There is one point on which I am confused, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is not. I should like clarification. To give priority to those individuals who make no financial contribution above those who are making a full and proper contribution must not also mean that the administrative systems of the CSA fall behind, thus inadvertently causing problems for those who want to pay the full amount, but are still awaiting assessment for payment, or waiting to have an assessment confirmed.

§ Mr. Field
Does not the new clause have one real disadvantage? Let us take our mind into the next Parliament, where I expect that the hon. Gentleman will still be sitting on the Opposition Benches and Labour will be on the Government Benches. The Opposition will be looking for the amount collected under the new Act. If we pass the new clause, one of the covers available to the Government would be that maintenance payments—or the rate of collection—had gone down because the Government were following the instructions given to them by the Opposition in the previous Parliament: that we should chase those from whom it is most difficult to obtain money and de-prioritise those from whom we can most easily get maintenance payments. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that?

§ Mr. Burns
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says. However, in practice that need not be true, although there is certainly a danger that it may be. If the CSA is properly staffed and managed, the problem would not necessarily arise. It remains to be seen whether the reforms will work, but the Government maintain that the system will be so much simpler and so much more transparent than the old one that the previous problems in administering it will not occur. They argue that those who have to pay child maintenance will understand what they are being asked to pay and that the complicated formula that we set up—believing that it would be fairer on parents—will be cut away. The system should be easier.
According to that argument, CSA staff should be able to handle their work load more easily because of the simplification and transparency of the system. A disproportionate amount of time and effort would not thus be spent on chasing the obstreperous or the non-payer. There would be a two-track system. It remains to be seen whether that happens—as with so many matters in the relatively short history of the CSA.
However, we must lance the boil that has caused so much agony and antagonism among so many parents who have held out, delayed and refused to pay for such a long time. Even if the new clause needs some improvement—with Government help—it would be a positive step forward in improving the legislation.

§ Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)
Amendment No. 76, tabled by my hon. Friends and me, relates to the position 354 of women who do not want to name the father, and to their concerns about violence. That is an important issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) hopes to speak if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker.
In my contribution, I shall respond to the amendments and new clauses tabled by Conservative Members. They raise some important issues.
The spirit of new clause 4 appears to touch that raw nerve about which we have all heard in our surgeries—the fathers who say, "I pay and I'm being chased, but I know someone else who doesn't pay a penny and he seems to be left alone." For the reasons that have been given—including the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—the new clause is problematic. How will the prioritisation work? Would people who paid something be left alone, and would that cause problems? It is hard to see how that form of words would work.
However, the Conservatives raised one general issue to which I should like to hear the Minister's response. What are the targets set for the agency? As with so many Government targets, do they distort priorities in a way that we would not want? Just as the infant class size target has distorted junior class sizes, and just as the in-patient waiting list target has distorted out-patient waiting lists, is there a danger that targets expressed in amounts of maintenance collected will distort by encouraging the CSA to chase those who are most easy to chase?
4.15 pm
I am genuinely uncertain about the targets and incentives that the CSA is set. Will the Minister assure the House that such incentives will encourage the CSA to chase non-payers—such as one requiring it to increase the percentage of people who are paying any amount—as much as they do to increase total maintenance collected? I hope that she can offer that reassurance. In the absence of such provision, the problem that the Conservatives have raised will continue. Many fathers who are doing their best to pay legitimately feel that others are getting away with doing nothing.
New clause 5 refers to deduction of earnings orders. I did not catch much reference to its aims in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I am not entirely clear what it would achieve. I would be happy to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman if he wants to elaborate on the matter.

§ Mr. Pickles
The new clause simply tries to improve the way in which deduction of earnings orders are levied. It is no more complicated than that.

§ Mr. Webb
I am grateful; I had assumed that, although how it would do so is still not clear to me.
My main concerns relate to amendment No. 89 and the long list of seemingly draconian measures to pursue non-payers. I notice the term "curfew" popping up and various other quite serious penalties for non-payment. I find myself asking in what respect is child support debt different from other debt. That is a fundamental question. Most of the specific penalties, such as the withdrawal of driving licences and the imposition of curfews, that we are introducing for child support debt would not apply to any other debt.
355 If I, as a tenant, owed a former landlord some money, I could be pursued through the courts by a deduction of earnings order and various other measures, but he could not apply to the court to put me under a curfew. Why would someone owing money in one sphere be subject to draconian attacks on liberties when someone owing money in another sphere would not be so? I am not sure that child support debt is different in substance, which is why I have reservations about the application of such penalties only to such debt.
It could be argued that the taxpayer has an interest. If so, there may be a case for restricting the imposition of such severe penalties to cases that result in the public purse losing out—although there is no indication of that in the amendment. I am not convinced that the case has been made for those very severe penalties to be applied peculiarly to child support debt. No argument has been made that it is so different from other debt. I am sure that we would not want to apply such sentences to other debt.
We very much sympathise with the spirit of new clause 4. Although its provisions would not work practically, we would like to hear from the Minister an assurance that the agency's targets recognise the genuine public concern about people who do not pay and give it an incentive to chase such people just as hard.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives will be able to address our concerns about women who fear violence.

§ Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)
I shall address the point raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb): in what way does the offence of owning child support debt differ from offences of owing other debt? I would say that the difference is this: child support debt is the most unnatural of crimes. We are talking of people who are not prepared to make provision for their own children. Therefore, I entirely understand the Government's desire to impose such strange punishments as the withdrawal of driving licences. I entirely understand the motive that lies behind the introduction of a new order of penalty to deal with a specific and unnatural crime.
My difficulty with the penalty is that it introduces a new principle into our criminal justice system. In this country, the penalties available to punish miscreants are generally understood. The principal ones are the deprivation of liberty, the deprivation of finance through fines and the deprivation of time through the imposition of community service orders. Withdrawing a driving licence is of a different order because the penalty would not effect everyone in the same way that the deprivation of liberty or the removal of finance or time does. Some people who owe child support debt do not possess a driving licence or own a car. Therefore, the ability to withdraw a driving licence would affect them differentially from other people. It would have no impact on them at all.
I prefer amendment No. 89 because it would provide a menu of penalties that would affect the miscreants in a way that is appropriate and consistent across the board. We had this discussion in Committee when we debated benefit withdrawal and the Government quite rightly responded to our suggestions that we should withdraw benefit by saying, "Ah, but what about those people who do not receive benefit? They would be affected 356 differentially. That would be unfair and unjust." I suggest that exactly the same argument applies to the desire to withdraw a driving licence. The menu of penalties in amendment No. 89 is far preferable.

§ Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)
My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke to amendment No. 76 and, depending on the Minister's response, I wish to flag up our desire to hold open the possibility of pressing that amendment to a separate vote.
The benefit penalty applicable to parents with care who refuse to divulge information about a former partner has been set at 40 per cent. for a number of years and it can apply to someone for an indefinite period. As I understand it, the Government intend to continue that approach. The amendment would restore the position to what it was when the benefit penalty for non-disclosure was a 20 per cent. maximum reduction for the first six months and a 10 per cent. maximum reduction for the ensuing 12 months with no possibility of extension beyond the total 18-month period.
There are several arguments against the withdrawal of benefit at a 40 per cent. rate. I welcome the Government's general claims and their obvious commitment to prioritising the ending of domestic violence, but they seemed determined that women who seek to avoid domestic violence should be coerced into financial dependence on violent partners. Amendment No. 71 has to be read in conjunction with amendment No. 81, which we shall debate later. I appreciate that the Minister objects to my comments, but matters of deep concern are involved. Assurances given by Ministers need to be deepened to reassure the many organisations concerned about domestic violence that the CSA will be able to deal effectively, robustly and sensitively with these difficult issues.

§ Mr. Swayne
We rehearsed those arguments in Committee, but I fear that the amendment in the hon. Gentleman's name would let off the hook the worst category of father: those who threaten physical violence. By providing that means of escape, we are accommodating the problem rather than trying to tackle it.

§ Mr. George
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is a question of getting the balance right. Many domestic violence cases lead to the murder of women, but there are also organisations that, rightly, campaign on a broad front to ensure that women do not make malicious and trumped-up allegations to avoid the father having contact, although I realise that that point is different from the one made by the hon. Gentleman.
How many more murders resulting from domestic violence need to take place before people appreciate the need to tighten up the legislation further? I hope that we will explore this argument a little more in the debate on amendment No. 81. Men may make violent threats in an attempt to get out of their responsibilities, but violent threats are followed through with tragic results, as we have seen far too often.
Amendment No. 76 is an anti-poverty amendment, and has to be read alongside amendment No. 81. There are four strong arguments against the Government's proposal for a benefit penalty. First, it will push children into poverty. The case is as simple and clear-cut as that. 357 A 40 per cent. reduction in benefit for a single parent pushes the family's income 40 per cent. below the income support level. How does the Minister view that in the light of the Government's honourable efforts in establishing the social exclusion unit and their key priority to reduce and remove childhood poverty? The proposal will clearly work against that.
The proposal will penalise the children whom the child support system is designed to support. If a low-income family loses income, everybody in the family suffers. The Government will be unable to prevent the parent with care from intentionally or unintentionally making the child bear the burden of that income loss. These are the people who can least afford to lose income. Two thirds of children in one-parent families in the UK are poor, compared with a quarter of children in two-parent families. Income support is set at a level that is supposed to be the absolute minimum for survival, but the Government propose to push families below that level.
Secondly, and equally importantly, non-disclosure is not necessarily an indication that the parent with care is taking money on the quiet from the non-resident parent. Although there will be fraud in the system, it is wrong to approach the issue on the assumption that everybody who, by commission or omission, does not fit into the normative scenario is on the fiddle. The Government have never produced evidence to support that assumption.
Thirdly, there is no evidence that the punitive approach has succeeded. The last increase in the severity and length of the benefit penalty was accompanied by a significant increase in non-compliance. The penalty particularly hits lone parents who believe, for whatever reason, that it is not in the interests of their children to co-operate with the CSA. Slapping a benefit penalty on them is unlikely to change their minds; it will drive them further away from the system.
4.30 pm
I shall cite two case studies in support of my argument. The first involves a lone parent who suffers agoraphobia and depression as a result of repeated assaults by her ex-husband, to whom she was married for 10 years. She also suffers from dyslexia. Until she sought advice, she was completely unaware that there were any exemptions from the requirement to co-operate. Her ex-husband still has some contact with the children, but she is terrified of him. She receives incapacity benefit and income support. Although she received several letters from the CSA, she did not respond to any of them because she was frightened and depressed; as a result, however, she was threatened with a benefit penalty. With the help of an adviser, she won her case at a tribunal, even though initially she was reluctant to appeal because she was too afraid.
In the second case, a lone parent with two sons, aged six and eight, was notified that a benefit penalty would be imposed because the CSA did not accept that she was exempt. She had been threatened by her ex-partner, who told her that, if she co-operated with the CSA, he would withdraw contact with the children. Her sons had suffered badly from his previously having withdrawn contact for one year; they had exhibited signs of intense distress. The woman had only just re-established that contact. She argues that her children are at risk of undue distress, 358 but that argument has been rejected by the CSA. She is now in turmoil, taking antidepressants, while awaiting an appeal against the benefit penalty.
The system causes hardship to the very children whom it is meant to support. Children in one-parent families are among the poorest in the land, and their parents can ill afford to lose a significant proportion of the already small sum on which they are expected to live. That is why we tabled our amendment.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle)
I shall try to deal with the issues as they were raised during the debate. They are quite wide ranging, but I shall do my best.
New clause 4 is designed to influence the way in which the CSA organises its resources in respect of collection and enforcement activities. The agency would have to take action against non-resident parents who have made no child support maintenance payments, who comprise 30 per cent. of the current case load, before turning to those who are partially compliant, who comprise 23 per cent. of the case load. I understand why the Opposition have been motivated to set out such priorities.
My argument has already been touched on by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns): the solution lies in the simplification of the CSA's business and process that the Bill will bring about. Under the current, complex formula, the CSA spends 90 per cent. of its time on collection and only 10 per cent. on enforcement. Under the new system, much more of the CSA's time will be spent on proper enforcement of maintenance agreements, once they are reached.

§ Mr. Burns
Is there not a problem with relying on good nature and the simplicity of the system? No matter how much simpler the new system is to operate, if the parent who has to pay child maintenance does not like the amounts, he will attempt to avoid paying by delaying or employing some other method. There will still be a huge backlog because of resistance on the part of paying parents.

§ Angela Eagle
There are fewer ways to stymie the new simplified system than there are to stymie the current complex formula. I cannot guarantee that there will never be a backlog, but we believe that, once the new formula is in place and the CSA is up and running at full speed, maintenance assessments will be made within four to six weeks, instead of the current six months.

§ Mr. Burns
The Minister refers to the formula, but it will not stop those parents who think that they know how much they will have to pay having no contact with the CSA, replying to letters or demands for information by querying them or not supplying all the information, or not supplying accurate and correct information. Those problems will still remain, however simple the system is, if a group of people want deliberately to string out or avoid paying.

§ Angela Eagle
Of course some things can be strung out. My argument with the new clause is that it creates a priority list that demonstrates to people that, if they pay something, however little, the CSA will leave them alone while it chases other people. I think that we can pick up everybody. Some people will be more obstructive than 359 others, but the changes to the system will give the CSA more space and time to focus on chasing those who, in the past, have got off scot-free. The old CSA got into many difficulties administering the formula that it had been given.

§ Mr. Pickles
The Minister seems to suggest that the new clause represents the Opposition's policy. In fact, it reflects what was the Labour party's policy. Will she explain how the target of catching up with the 100,000 who are not making a contribution will be met? How will she target them? Surely she is not saying that the simplified formula alone, which we support, will achieve the target? People are avoiding making payments because they have no intention of doing so, and not because of the formula. If the hon. Lady will take us through how the target will be achieved, I am sure that we shall make rapid progress.

§ Angela Eagle
The present system involves more than 100 different facts being established before a maintenance order can properly be calculated. Changes of circumstances happen so regularly that the assessment can virtually be out of date before it can be administered and notified to those who are responsible for paying it. The proposed formula is radically simpler. It will be necessary to establish the number of children and the income of the father, and then make a simple calculation. It will leave the CSA with much more time to pursue the more difficult cases.
We want to ensure that non-resident parents will all meet their responsibilities for their children, and make regular and reliable payments of maintenance. We do not want to create perverse incentives to pay a little so that fathers are not chased for the rest, while people who have disappeared from the system—there will always be difficult cases in any system—are left to be pursued at length. That is not appropriate. Our priority is to ensure that all fathers make the proper payments.
The provision proposed in new clause 5—

§ Mr. Webb
I asked the Minister a specific question on new clause 4 about the agency's incentives and the targets that it is given. Presumably, targets are set to try to make the agency prioritise particular actions. Do the agency's targets encourage it to pursue non-payers?

§ Angela Eagle
The targets relate not to the amounts of maintenance paid but to the speed and accuracy of assessment, which is the main work that the CSA does with 90 per cent. of its time and to case and cash compliance. With the new system, we shall be able to take a completely new look at how the targets operate. Clearly, we would not wish to establish targets that would create incentives for odd results. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point.
We are asked in new clause 5 to put in place a provision that already exists in section 31 of the Child Support Act 1991, which allows for a deduction from earnings order to be made in respect of the current maintenance liability, plus an amount for arrears. About 98 per cent. of the almost 130,000 deductions from earnings orders in force cover arrears as well as current liability. Those figures are from November last year, and are our most recent ones. New clause 5 is unnecessary because what is sought is already done.
360 We all know that the complexities of the current formula leave the agency with little time for collecting maintenance, which is why a radical simplification has been brought before the House.
Amendment No. 76 would reduce and time-limit reduced benefit decisions. Because of the way in which it is drafted, it would also reduce the benefit of the parent with care by 20 per cent. of the whole. The 40 per cent. reduction in place relates only to the adult applicable allowance, so the proposed 20 per cent. represents a higher proportion.
Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), one would think that good cause did not exist, but it does and it works effectively. If there are cases around the edge that he wishes to bring to my attention, we shall examine them.
The plain fact is that if a woman suspects that, by engaging the CSA, she may be in danger of violent behaviour from her ex-partner, that constitutes good cause. There is no way that the CSA will pursue maintenance if she can show good cause for its not pursuing it.
The issue of sanctions and reduced benefit decisions involves parents with care who refuse to get the CSA involved, and are happy for the taxpayer to pay for the upkeep of their children, without good cause. In other words, they are not in danger of a violent reaction from their ex-partners. The benefit deductions are designed to persuade those people to come into the system.
We do not believe that payment of child support should be optional, and that people should be able to choose. That is partly to protect the taxpayer. It ought to be the exception, rather than the rule, that child support is not in payment.

§ Mr. Swayne
Where it is shown that there is good cause, is that not a matter for referral to the police for investigation? It cannot be left that someone should get off, just by making such a threat.

§ Angela Eagle
I agree with the hon. Gentleman absolutely. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour, and we should not kowtow to it by setting up a system that seems to create incentives for people to behave in that way. I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman made in his earlier intervention.
When the good cause definitions were changed from 10 and 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. in 1996, 70 per cent. of parents with care initially claimed that they had good cause not to co-operate with the CSA. That point has been raised more than once by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
Parents have a responsibility to support their children. The benefits system should step in only when they are unable to do so. Child support should not be optional. The underlying purpose of a reduced benefit direction is to encourage parents with care to apply for child support, unless they have good reason or good cause not to do so.
We believe that a benefit penalty of 40 per cent. of the adult applicable amount in income support, which is not the whole amount of benefit and certainly not that which would be allocated for the children, is set at the right level to achieve that.
361 About 85 per cent. of parents with care claiming benefit co-operate with the CSA in seeking maintenance, which compares with only 30 per cent. who used to co-operate. This total turn-around, which has occurred in a very short time and is an extremely positive development, is due in part to the improved closer working arrangements between the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency. It is a real achievement.
Since April 1999, Benefits Agency staff assist new income support clients in completing maintenance application forms where appropriate. That means that clients need give information to the Department only once. However, the fact remains that some parents with care refuse to co-operate with the agency without good cause, so we need to retain a meaningful penalty provision. It would be unfair on children if we did not impose sanctions on parents with care who unreasonably prevent—I stress, unreasonably prevent—the recovery of child support.
We are very conscious of the need to protect vulnerable parents and their children. As I said earlier, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the parent with care or any child living with her would suffer harm or undue distress as a result of pursuing child support, no penalty will be imposed.

§ Mr. George
Prior to the improvement in the CSA's record, how many of the parents not co-operating with the CSA were claiming good cause?

§ Angela Eagle
I do not know the figures off the top of my head, but I shall give them to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
I was about to share with the House the drop, as a percentage of case load, in the number of people on reduced benefit directions. That has come down from 19 per cent. in 1997–98 to 9 per cent. now, and we hope to bring it down even further.
In Committee, Opposition Members tabled an amendment proposing that the courts should be able to impose a curfew or a community service order for refusal to pay child support maintenance, with which I had some sympathy, and I agreed to see whether we could frame amendments to achieve that aim. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has the letter that I sent to him after careful, not perfunctory, consideration. I was anxious to see whether that could be done.
Unfortunately, sanctions such as curfews or community service orders are penalties for criminal offences and non-payment of child support is a civil issue. Extending the Bill as Opposition Members suggest would mean importing into the civil system all the legislative and operational arrangements that apply to the criminal courts. For example, probation officers would have to provide pre-sentencing reports and the mechanics surrounding electronic tagging where private sector firms are appointed to monitor the arrangements.
The effect of that would be to superimpose on the civil system virtually all the penalties available in the criminal courts, and we would lose the distinction between magistrates sitting in their civil and criminal capacities. 362 We considered the matter carefully, but we could find no way to legislate for such penalties without superimposing the criminal system on the civil system.

§ Mr. Burns
It may assist the hon. Lady if I draw to her attention the precedent of curfews imposed in certain parts of our towns and cities to keep young people off the streets at night. I understand that that has been done under the civil, not the criminal, law.

§ Angela Eagle
That is not my information, but I shall check.

§ Mr. Swayne
Given what I describe as the unnatural nature of what I believe is a crime—the determination not to make a financial provision for one's own offspring—would it not be appropriate for the hon. Lady to impose a criminal penalty when the Bill is reintroduced in the other place?

§ Angela Eagle
That is the hon. Gentleman's view, but I have looked at the matter carefully and I do not think that it would be appropriate to make non-payment of child support a criminal offence. I shall explain why.
Criminal sanctions are about punishment. Child support is about doing what is best for children and encouraging fathers to pay maintenance and, hopefully, in most circumstances, to play a full part in their children's lives. That would not be achieved by criminalising the non-payment of child support. The downside of that outweighs the positive effects that the hon. Gentleman outlines. I realise that people might have a different view, but that is the view that I take.

§ Mr. Pickles
I recognise that the hon. Lady understands the benefits of such a measure and rejects it reluctantly, but will she confirm that taking away a driving licence is an alternative to imprisonment? If so, I do not understand the difference between imprisoning someone and imposing a curfew order. As the hon. Lady supports our objective, she must have received legal advice, so perhaps she would share it with us.

§ Angela Eagle
Clearly, the courts have to decide when someone comes before them whether he or she has culpably and neglectfully—I think that those are the words used in the legislation—declined to pay child support, so there must be on-going evidence of complete non-co-operation and refusal to accept responsibility. It is then up to the courts to determine the penalty: removing the driving licence or the ultimate sanction of committal to prison. Evidence from other countries and jurisdictions shows that removing a driving licence is an effective method of getting child support maintenance paid. We look forward to approving that when the sanction becomes available to the courts. However, it will be up to the courts to decide whether to effect it in every case.
I appreciate that Conservative Members are trying to be helpful in tabling the new clause; I genuinely tried to be helpful in seeking ways of including its substance that had no major implications for the criminal and civil court system. I could not do that, but I am glad that there is so much cross-party support for our aim of helping to eradicate child poverty by ensuring that all parents support their children.
363 I ask hon. Members to reject new clauses 4 and 5 and amendments Nos. 79 and 89 for the reasons that I outlined. Government amendment No. 40 would make technical changes to clause 16, which introduces a new civil penalty and gives the courts the power to disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence when child support is not paid. It clarifies that the courts are required to notify the Secretary of State or, as he directs, the Drivers and Vehicle Licensing Agency when a disqualification order has been made, amended or lifted.

§ Mr. Burns
Would someone's driving licence be taken away in lieu of paying the money, or would it be an additional penalty to bring pressure on the person to pay? I hope that it is the latter.

§ Angela Eagle
It is not in lieu of paying the money. The simple way of retaining one's driving licence is to pay before the courts decide to take it away. We hope that that will be the penalty's DRIVE—Development of Rural Initiative, Venture and Enterprise [Wales] DVLA Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, effect. However, if payment continues not to be made, the courts can make another disqualification order.

§ Mr. Field
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does the Bill provide for offices to use the driving licence centre as a way of tracing individuals? If the driving licence is in the relevant individual's name, can the make of car he used as evidence about life style? I appreciate that the question moves the debate on, but I could not envisage another opportunity of raising the matter.

§ Angela Eagle
As always, my right hon. Friend is creative in his questions. I suspect that the answer is yes, but I want to check some data protection matters and be confident that I am right before issuing a ringing yes.

§ Mr. Pickles
The Minister has been very courteous. We got rather excited about the Bill in Committee and spent much time on curfew orders. We did not ask a question that perhaps we should have asked. Will the driving licence be removed for a period or until the debt is paid? Before the driving licence is restored, would the person have to resit a test?

§ Angela Eagle
I can answer a ringing no to the last question. The maximum period will be up to two years. However, the courts will consider specific circumstances when they decide whether to apply the penalty.

§ Mr. Pickles
The second part of my three-pipe question is, if the person repays the debt, will he receive the driving licence back immediately?

§ Angela Eagle
Yes, answered ringingly.

§ Mr. Swayne
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
I am not sure whether the Minister has concluded.

§ Angela Eagle
I have.

§ Mr. Pickles
Our discussion has been good and fair. Our new clause raises an important point. We share the view of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that we want an understanding about targets. When the Labour party was in opposition, it was clear that it would target non-payers. The Minister says, fairly and reasonably, that the new system will try to avoid spending 90 per cent. of the time on assessment, although we shall come to aspects of that which might make that statement appear a little bold, certainly at face value. I hope that she does not take offence, but I do not believe that the Government have given no thought to the new targets—which do not relate to assessment—and it would have been helpful to discuss targeting people who have made no contribution.
There is general agreement around the Chamber that we should go after such people and no sympathy on either side of the House for those who say, "I've paid a couple of quid a month so the CSA will leave me alone." There is a general test of reasonableness in that. We may probe some more, perhaps in the other place, but I emphasise that these are Labour's own targets. They were not merely thrown together. Non-payers are Labour's No. 1 target and the Government are going for them more than anything else so it is disappointing—I put it no more strongly than that—that they have not said how they will achieve that.
The Minister says that it would not be possible to implement amendment No. 89, our other major proposal. She thought it a good idea in the excitement in Committee, but does not seem terribly keen now. She says that it is complex and would involve probation officers' reports and this, that and the other, but I hope that she will have another word with the lawyers. If someone is to be sent to prison, reports have to be obtained. Our judicial system does not throw somebody in jail without making pre-sentencing inquiries.

§ Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that people go to prison for civil offences. A person can be sent to prison without the whole criminal justice system being imported to the procedure that leads to imprisonment.

§ Mr. Pickles
I am aware of that. I am not being highly critical and, when I received the Minister's letter, I did not thump on her door and say, "You are being extremely unreasonable." However, we need to consider that matter.

§ Mr. Swayne
Will my hon. Friend give way on the question of unreasonableness?

§ Mr. Pickles
Yes.

§ Mr. Swayne
It might be unfair to ask my hon. Friend this question, but the Minister sat down before I could ask it of her. If two individuals in identical circumstances had the same amount of debt, but one had no driving licence and the other had and that was withdrawn by the court, what compensating penalty would be imposed on the other, given that he would have no driving licence to withdraw? Would he be thrown in prison? Would that not be a penalty for not possessing a driving licence? In the interests of equity, we need answers to those questions.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
He would lose his bus pass.

§ Mr. Pickles
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is a tough man, as always, 365 and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggests that such a person would lose his bus pass. He almost certainly would not, but my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West was not making a jocular point because there is a great discrepancy in the Bill. There is a difference between a light tap and a heavy penalty, and we seek a degree of grading.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) raised a legitimate point. She said, "If the Conservatives are right, the great panoply of the criminal law will be imposed on a simple matter." However, we are not saying that. We are considering what the Prime Minister has said. Curfew orders are straightforward and concern the release of a prisoner into the wider community. When a prisoner is released, various procedures are necessary: for instance, probation reports must be received.
5 pm
The Prime Minister is saying, "The orders have been quite successful; let us transfer them to other offences." The offences that the Government have identified are domestic violence, which is clearly criminal, and stalking, which is also clearly criminal. However, they are now considering extending such orders to the Child Support Agency. As the Minister said, we are not talking about those who are a bit behind with their contributions; we are talking about the person who says, "I do not care how many demands I receive. I am not going to pay."
If the Minister thinks that curfew orders are not appropriate, other options should be considered before the Bill completes its passage in another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has suggested putting people's credit rating on their credit cards; other civil measures may be possible. What we are saying is that the penalties must contain a gradable element. If the legislation is to have teeth, it cannot be all or nothing: there must be something in between.
I hope that the Minister will take a long hard look at possible civil penalties, because the Government's proposals are not satisfactory. The measure involving driving licences is not sufficient by itself. I do not mean to be hurtful, but putting that measure on its own into the Bill makes it look ridiculous—and no legislation that aims to make people meet their responsibilities can afford to look ridiculous.
I hope that the Government will consider what I have said, and what improvements might be made in another place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.