HC Deb 04 March 1991 vol 187 cc76-8W
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to ensure that child support agency staff are fully trained and can offer an adequate counselling service.

Mr. Jack

Staff in the agency will be properly trained in recognition of the sensitive nature of their work. They will also be able to help those lone parents who wish to work to do so by advising them on "in work" benefits and identifying the practical help available from various sources such as employment training, jobcentres, job clubs, and so on. Training will focus on measures to provide a good quality service to the public including, among other things how to deal sensitively and sympathetically with people who may be under stress. Staff will be responsible for ensuring that the caring parent understands the range of services that the agency can provide.

Miss Lestor

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the proposed changes to child maintenance will incorporate an additional element when calculations of maintenance levels are being arrived at for children with disabilities.

Mr. Jack

The White Paper "Children Come First" invited comments on whether the maintenance required should be increased for a child who is disabled. The Government are considering the differing comments received.

Miss Lestor

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many responses he has received to the White Paper "Children Come First"; and if he will publish a digest of them, together with the Government response.

Mr. Jack

So far, some 250 submissions from organisations and individuals have been received. The Government have no plans to publish a digest and response. A number of the organisations which commented have already published their responses and in a number of cases individuals commented drawing on their own personal experience. We have considered all the comments received and there will be an opportunity to discuss the issues during debates on the Child Support Bill and the detailed regulations.

Miss Lestor

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy in future legislation on maintenance enforcement to replace the White Paper terms "caring parent" and "absent parent" with "resident parent" and "contact parent", respectively.

Mr. Jack

We received comments on terminology in a small number of responses to the White Paper "Children Come First" and have given thorough consideration to the most appropriate and readily comprehensible phrases to describe the parties involved in a maintenance award. In the Child Support Bill, introduced in another place on 14 February, "caring parent" has been replaced by "person with care". This reflects the fact that a person responsible for the day-to-day care of a child is not necessarily the child's natural or adoptive parent. We do not think that the proposed terms are appropriate, because the responsibility to pay maintenance is wholly independent of whether the parent has any contact with the child.

Miss Lestor

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what mechanism there will be to ensure that the proposed new Child Support Agency will not reduce the income of individuals or families to below the income support level when enforcing maintenance payment; and if he will make a statement on the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee to reconsider the proposal in the White Paper "Children Come First" to impose a penalty of over £7 a week reduction in benefit for lone parents who refuse to name the liable parent.

Mr. Jack

The Child Support Bill sets out the method of calculation of the amount of maintenance due to be paid for a child or children. It makes provision for a protected level of income after the payment of maintenance based on income support levels.

The Bill also makes provision requiring a caring parent who claims income support or family credit to co-operate as far as possible in obtaining maintenance. Where there is no good reason for a failure to do so a reduction may be made in the amount of benefit paid. We have considered very carefully all the comments received on this issue, including those of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We remain convinced that it is right in principle to expect both parents to do as much as they reasonably can to ensure the payment of proper amounts of maintenance for their children. It would, however, clearly not be right to define criteria for this purpose which would mean that the making of a threat of violence would automatically absolve an absent parent from liability being pursued.