On Wednesday 25 January, the last day of the Welfare Reform Bill’s Report Stage, the Lords will turn its attention to the Government’s child maintenance proposals – where another government defeat is threatened.
Under an amendment tabled by the widely respected Conservative Peer, Lord Mackay of Clashfern – former Lord Chancellor under Mrs Thatcher – parents with main care of children who have no alternative but to use the statutory maintenance service in order to get maintenance for their children would be exermpted from government charges [1].
In Lord Mackay’s words:
“When a woman[2] as a typical example has taken all reasonable steps and done all she can to reach an agreement but cannot manage it, I do not agree that she should be charged by the CSA for her application…That is utterly unfair. If anyone is to pay for that, surely it should be the person who has caused the difficulty by trying to escape from his moral obligations.” [3]
Lord Mackay is likely to receive considerable support for his amendment – including from Conservative Peers. It is significant that Lord Boswell of Aynho, a Conservative Peer, has added his name to the amendment, and at Committee stage, Lord Mackay was supported by former Conservative Secretary of State for Social Security Lord Newton of Braintree who said:
“The proposition…that, if it is not practicable [to make private voluntary arrangements], people should be charged for getting justice and reasonable support for their children, is bordering on the indefensible.”[4]
Ministers say the main purpose of charging is to drive behavioural change and make former couples choose to collaborate rather than use the state maintenance system. Yet, as a DWP briefing for Peers has acknowledged, a “significant proportion” of parents will not be in a position to agree private maintenance in this way. As Baroness Lister of Burtersett has said “what behavioural change are they trying to achieve in such circumstances?” [5] It is clear that there is considerable unease among Peers across the political divide concerning charging parents where the CSA is their only hope of ensuring that the non-resident parent meets his [6] obligations to help support his children.
Fiona Weir, Chief Executive of Gingerbread said: “There appears to be a groundswell of support from Peers across the House for Lord Mackay’s principled stand. They can see the injustice of making children pay the price, where ‘non-resident parents’ fail to live up to their financial obligations towards their children. [ If anyone should pay towards the costs of the future Agency, it should be the parents who fail to heed the government’s positive encouragement to pay maintenance on a private basis, voluntarily.]” [7]
ENDS
Notes to Editors :
[1] Lord Mackay has tabled an amendment which would amend government powers to charge for use of the statutory maintenance service contained in Section 6 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill 2008. These powers have still to be implemented, but the current government has proposed that the following charges will apply from 2013:
• An upfront charge levied on the applicant (usually the parent with care) in order to use the future new Agency. The Government is currently proposing an upfront charge of £100 or £50 for an applicant on out-of-work benefits;
• An ongoing ‘collection charge’ taken by the new Agency from every maintenance payment it collects, in the range of 7-12% of the payment, before the money is passed on for the children;
• A further ‘collection surcharge’ which the Government proposes to charge those non-resident parent who, once statutory maintenance has been calculated and after being given a ‘second chance’ to pay the sum due direct to the parent with care, still fail to pay and where the Agency then steps in to collect the maintenance due. This collection surcharge is likely to be in the range of an extra 15-20% of the maintenance liability.
[2] According to the DWP’s Equality Impact Assessment on the government’s child maintenance proposals including charging, 97% of parents with care eligible for child maintenance are female. See http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-strengthening-families.pdf
[3] His comments came during the Committee Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill on 28th November 2011. See column GC 61-62: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/111128-gc0001.htm#1111285000130
[4] Ibid, column GC 62
[5] Ibid, column GC 46
[6] The overwhelming majority of the parents designated “non-resident parents” by the Child Support Agency, are fathers (97%).
[7] A wide range of family and children’s charities, and organisations concerned about child poverty are backing Lord Mackay’s amendment. These include AVA, Child Poverty Action Group, The Children’s Society, Children 1st, Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland, Family Action, Family and Parenting Institute, Fawcett, 4Children, Gingerbread, Imkaan, Mothers’ Union, NCB, One Parent Families Scotland, Oxfam, Parenting across Scotland, Platform 51, Poverty Alliance, Resolution, Scoopaid, TUC, and Women’s Resource Centre.
Gingerbread press contact: Lucy Abell on 0207 428 5406 or 07881 951138