| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North): Does the Secretary of State agree that the large number of children
in Britain affected by family insecurity and the resulting poverty and deprivation will burn a hole in Britain's future unless we make her reforms work? The House of Commons has been good at espousing the principle of parental responsibility, but somewhat shriller in attacking child maintenance in practice. Often, the voice of men has overcome the needs of children.
During consultation, will the Secretary of State do her best to build a true consensus in Parliament, including those parties that have previously attacked the principle? Will she also seek consensus among the public so that we can ingrain in our culture the idea that having a child--as mum or dad--brings rights and joys, but also responsibilities, including the financial responsibility to maintain the child?
Ms Harman:
I absolutely agree, and I will do as my hon. Friend suggests. I pay tribute to his important work on child support, and the understanding and wisdom that he has brought to bear.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury):
I, too, welcome the fact that someone is trying, at last, to do something about the Child Support Agency. I also welcome the Secretary of State's important judgment that there is a place for tribunals in the new system. The main question is the size of the gateway. If there is a narrow gateway, a great many people will feel that the system is unfair and that their circumstances have not been properly taken into account. If people cannot agree the amount of maintenance with their ex-partners, that disagreement will be bad for children.
Will not the Secretary of State find, as the experience of the CSA shows, that the small number of exceptions for which she has allowed is bound to grow, until most people, if not all of them, go through the tribunal system? Would it not be best to acknowledge that, and to get the system right now?
Ms Harman:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, which I share with the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, Baroness Hollis, who has done a huge amount of work to bring our proposals forward. The hon. Gentleman asked what would be taken into account. The principle is that the system will deal with a specific child, a specific father and the father's responsibility to pay for that child out of his net income. That is the simplification we seek.
A broad gateway, which would allow thousands of matters to be taken into account at tribunal, would take us back to the current system, which is not fair. We must remember that the current system tangled people up until they did not know where they stood. If our system sets a clear percentage, but allows the other parent to go to tribunal and to bring up hundreds of different circumstances that can change the percentage, we will return to lack of clarity. It is fair to set 15 per cent. of net income for one child. That leaves 85 per cent. of net income for the father to spend as he sees fit, or to live on.
The average assessment per father under the new set of formulae will be lower than that under the current system. I know that you, Madam Speaker, take a great interest in assessments, because of Child Support Agency cases in your own constituency. The average assessment per father is £38 under the current system, but the average payment
is only £25. Under our system, the average assessment will be about £29, but we expect the average payment to be proportionately higher, because more fathers will pay.
Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North):
I should confess that I am the only Member who sat on the Committees that dealt with all three pieces of existing legislation. Will the Secretary of State promise us that, at the end of consultation, there will be a draft Bill, but also draft regulations? With social security, the devil is always in the detail, and no one who dealt with the first Bill foresaw how the regulations would turn out in practice.
Ms Harman:
I am sure that my hon. Friend will play an important role in bringing forward this reform. He has had a long-standing interest in this matter on behalf of his constituents and on a wider basis. The number of reports that we have received--to which my hon. Friend has contributed--about the problems with the CSA bear testimony to the need for reform. It is now down to the Government and the House to take that reform forward.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon):
In welcoming today's statement, may I ask whether the Secretary of State accepts that there could be a danger in moving from a system that is too complex to one that is too simplistic? Will she give an assurance that account will be taken of particular circumstances, such as high travel-to-work costs in certain parts of these islands? Will she ensure also that the net income of self-employed people is assessed? That can be an extremely difficult exercise. Will that sensitivity be built into the system, in order to ensure that it works fairly?
Ms Harman:
When it comes to assessing the net income of the self-employed, we shall bring the situation into line with the Revenue, and calculate our assessment on the same basis as that used by the Revenue. There is a big problem with non-compliance with maintenance assessments on the part of the self-employed, and we must sort it out.
The right hon. Gentleman heralds the start of calls to make the system complicated again. We must resist those calls--we have a choice, and we are proposing that we must resist them. We cannot have fairness and complexity side by side. If a system is too complicated, it will be unfair because of its complexity. We think that we shall achieve clarity through simplicity and getting the system right by using the correct percentages. People will know where they stand, and they will be able to start paying right away. That amounts to fairness and justice.
If we are united in our criticism of the current system--and we are--we must recognise that there is only one way forward. Only one substantial change can make the difference: turning our back on the complexity and all the individual circumstances--we tried that approach, and it failed--and moving to a simpler system that is more like the tax system. People pay their taxes on a fixed percentage of their income, and they should be able to pay for their children in the same way.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
The CSA has proved to be very adept at getting large sums of money from people who are salaried, but getting absolutely nothing from the self-employed. What is there in this newly proposed scheme that will carry the power
Ms Harman:
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. She, too, has been a well-informed and balanced critic of the Child Support Agency. Simplifying the formula will allow the Child Support Agency to spend more time on enforcement. Great frustration is experienced by parents with care, who report their circumstances and who believe that they are never looked into because the Child Support Agency is too busy assessing maintenance and has no time to chase up the payments.
If our basis for assessment is the same as that of the Revenue, the self-employed will simply need to show us the assessment that they have given the Revenue, which has been approved, and we can proceed. That is another benefit of simplification. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I have answered the question about enforcement: there will be more time and more co-ordination with the Revenue under the new system, so the situation will be clear.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
Does the right hon. Lady accept that many people believe that the Child Support Agency, as a decision-making body as opposed to an enforcement body, should be abolished? Does she understand that many people believe also that maintenance orders should reflect the individual facts and circumstances of every case? That cannot be addressed through a formula: it involves the exercise of inquiry and discretion.
If that is so, I think that the Secretary of State will accept that that cannot be done by officials. In all circumstances, is it not right to contemplate returning the whole process either to the courts or to quasi-judicial tribunals, and leaving to the agency only the enforcement function?
Ms Harman:
One criticism of the court system that preceded the Child Support Agency was that, without a formula and with decisions left to judicial discretion, there was huge variation and a sense of unfairness. One set of parents might be awarded £15-a-week maintenance while another set with an identical income might be awarded £40 a week by a different court. Such unfairness led the previous Administration, with our support, to introduce a formula instead of judicial discretion.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |