Parents with Care: Support (Hansard, 19 May 1994)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor)
My Lords, parents with care who come off income support will no longer qualify automatically for certain benefits such as housing benefit, council tax benefit and help with NHS charges. However, they will still be eligible to apply for those benefits, on low income grounds, which will generally mean they are better off overall.
It is possible that a small number of parents with care may be worse off overall, in particular where loss of entitlement to free school meals outweighs any increase in income. However, the receipt of maintenance will be of long-term benefit to parents with care by providing a stepping stone to full-time work, and family credit rates incorporate an element of support for school meal costs.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very careful Answer. When he says that a small number of people may be worse off, does he speak with statistical knowledge or from conjecture? Will he take note of a case found by a citizens advice bureau on Merseyside where a woman whose maintenance had brought her 82 pence above income support levels as a result lost access to the Social Fund, direct payments of household bills, free prescription charges, free dental charges, free eye test charges, free legal advice and, one should now add, VAT on fuel? Will the Minister concede that that woman is probably worse off? Will he concede that she may not have been untypical?

Viscount Astor
My Lords, as I said earlier, there will be cases where parents with care may be worse off but one should remember that in 96 per cent. of the cases taken on so far, a parent with care and her children have been living at state benefit levels, while in most cases the absent parents have enjoyed a much higher standard of living. The Child Support Act is seeking to redress that balance.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, surely the Minister will agree that the Child Support Act has done nothing of the kind; it has not redressed the balance in any sense. In fact, children are no better off and, indeed, in many cases are worse off than they were previously. In that respect, the Child Support Act has failed as has the Child Support Agency. Can the Government not see that what is required is a very wide-ranging and sympathetic review of the Act and its implementation?

Viscount Astor
My Lords, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the old system was not 351 effective. It resulted in widely varying levels of maintenance, a priority to expenses other than child support and generally low levels of rewards. It was not working for children. We looked at the scheme and recognised that some adjustments were needed. We introduced in February of this year a balanced package of measures which take account of the interests of children, parents with care, absent parents and the taxpayer. Of course, time is needed to see the impact of those changes. However, we are keeping the scheme under close review.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, is it not a basic fact of politics that those who gain from a change in a system never comment but that those who lose are very vociferous in their objections? Given that fact, can my noble friend the Minister tell us how many complaints the department has received compared to the total number of clients served by the Child Support Agency?

Viscount Astor
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. However, I cannot tell him about the number of complaints; but perhaps it would help your Lordships if I quoted an extract from a letter from Gingerbread, which is an association for all lone parents and their children. It reads: We generally welcomed the changes made in February this year in order to ease the burden on some absent parents who are experiencing genuine hardship in making their payments. But we have been dismayed that the loud voices of well-organised fathers who have the resources to fund a campaign have drowned out the quieter voices of mothers who have no access to such resources".

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that that carefully selected quotation is not universally accepted? What is accepted is that the CSA is a disaster. It has caused much more hardship than the Minister is able to accept at present. Would it not be much better for the Government to reconsider their recent policy of concentrating fringe benefits and other benefits on income support people and concentrate instead on all people with low incomes?

Viscount Astor
My Lords, I really should point out to the noble Lord that it is estimated, for example, that in 60 per cent. of the cases dealt with in the first year there will have been no regular maintenance payment. Children were suffering. The Child Support Act helps those children. It is always difficult to bring in a new scheme. We made some changes, but we do indeed listen to any criticisms of the way that the CSA is run. As I said, we shall keep the situation under review.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, but there have already been many cases—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Boardman
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the main purpose of the Act was to ensure that parents who have the means to do so should maintain their children rather than passing that burden on to the taxpayer?

Viscount Astor
My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. I believe that the principles of the scheme are strongly supported. Those principles 352 state that, although parents can divorce or separate, both parents remain responsible for their children. In other words, parents can divorce each other but they cannot divorce themselves from responsibility for their children.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, no one takes objection to the last statement by the Minister about the principles of the Act. Our concern is with its implementation and the way that it works. Did not the Minister say that some first-family parents—those on income support and family credit—are actually worse off? On Tuesday, the Minister in another place said that he did not know how many first-family parents are better off. Therefore, will the Minister accept that in such ignorance the situation is an utter shambles; that the Government have potentially another poll tax fiasco on their hands; and that the sooner they recognise that a thorough overhaul must take place, the better it will be for all people, especially for children?

Viscount Astor
My Lords, the thorough overhaul that the noble Baroness would like would not help the children. As I said, there may be parents with care who could lose out; for example, those on family credit. However, with regard to family credit, they have done much better. Indeed, some families will still be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit. Moreover, they can recover up to 85 per cent. of their losses through increased housing benefit and council tax benefit.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, the noble Viscount admitted that some mothers are worse off. However, on 27th April, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, admitted that some fathers may perceive themselves to be worse off than if they were on benefit. Therefore, is anyone better off, except the Treasury?

Viscount Astor
Yes, my Lords; the children.