Transcript - BBC News 24 "Agenda" - 2nd March 2003CSA Reforms
This transcript doesn't (yet) cover the contributions to the programme by Michelle Counley or Ray Mellor. Here is a commentary on this transcript. Chris Lowe Tomorrow sees a big change in the way the Child Support Agency works. It is almost 10 years since it was created and its been accompanied by controversy almost every step of the way. And tomorrow is no exception, because a brand new system of assessment is being brought in. Now, it may catch more absent parents in its net, but some believe that it will result in many fathers, and it is usually fathers, having to pay much more than they do at the moment. The basic change is that most parents will pay a straight percentage of their incomes depending on how many children they have and no longer will they be able to negotiate special deals. Well, in a moment Ill be joined from our Westminster studio by former Social Security minister Frank Field, from Manchester by Ray Mellor who set up the parents support group PALS and who thinks he is facing a whacking 100% increase in the charges hell have to pay to a former partner, and here with me is Barry Pearson, a business analyst with a special interest in the CSA. But first, to Dudley in the West Midlands, and Michelle Counley. Now, she chairs the National Association for Child Support Action, set up to help parents like her who feel they are victims of the CSA. Michelle Counley
Chris Lowe Michelle Counley of the National Association for Child Support Action. And her last point, I guess, is the crucial one: what is in the best interest of the child? Frank Field, down at Westminster there, do you think the children have been well served by the Child Support Agency thus far? Frank Field Well, I dont think children have been well served, I dont think most parents have been well served, I dont think taxpayers have been well served, nor do I think the staff who are asked to run the service have been well served. So there is a huge need for radical change, but sadly I dont believe whats going to be introduced tomorrow will actually fit the bill. Chris Lowe Well come onto the change tomorrow in a moment. Ray Mellor, would you agree with Frank Field that it hasnt served the interests of & well, anybody, frankly? Ray Mellor
Chris Lowe Well, well come onto as I say to the immediate change in a moment. But just about the CSA generally, Barry Pearson youve followed it closely, youve examined it closely, have you? One of the criticisms made by Michelle in that film is that she claims its Treasury driven its actually in the interest of the Treasury first, before parents or anybody else. Barry Pearson Thats right. And in fact that is also one of my criticisms of it. Until we can get the Treasury out of the loop we wont be able to think of how child support should work for families and children. Increasingly the Treasury has slightly relaxed its grip on the Child Support Agency. First in the case of the Working Families Tax Credit system, in which it said "we are not try and get a linkage between the Tax Credits and the child support system", and that was welcomed, almost universally I think. And the system tomorrow relaxes it a bit more. But it needs to get completely out of the loop, I believe. Chris Lowe What about the suggestion that Michelle mentioned that we should follow the Canadian system, where as I understand it the government pays the money to the single parent with the child, and recoups the money itself from the absent parent, rather than the parents themselves being so heavily involved in it together. Barry Pearson Its got some merits. The argument put against it, which also has some merit, was that this would start to look to the father that he was paying money to the government. Because although in fact he was really paying it to the mother in arrears, it would appear to him that he was paying it to the government, and this would be a bad taste, probably. Chris Lowe So, Frank Field, the change that is coming tomorrow which is designed to simplify the system for everybody for everybody, what is wrong with it from your point of view? Frank Field Well, if I could just go back one moment, the Treasury has every right to be involved, in that we are talking about the massive huge bill that taxpayers foot because largely fathers dont meet their responsibilities. So I disagree fundamentally with this soft line that we somehow should get the Treasury out of it. The Treasury is actually representing us, and for too long large numbers of fathers have not met any of the costs of raising their children & Chris Lowe But isnt the argument about the CSA - its track record over 10 years - they been very good at getting more and more money out of those who are happy to pay but not very good at chasing those people that it should be chasing who are not happy to pay. Frank Field Well, it isnt actually very good at getting more money out of even that static group, and what I argued for and failed to convince the government was that we should have a very simple tax system where for example, we debate the point, whether it is 3p on tax for 1 child, 6p for 2 and 9p for 3, and the Treasury would collect that automatically. So the example we heard earlier on with the barrister, who outrageously pays only £5 a week because he knows the rules, that wouldnt rub. That when he put in his tax form, once his taxable income was computed the very simple tax formula would then apply in addition to any other taxation he paid. And, the problem we have had from the word go is that people who design benefits have designed this reform yet again who are endlessly trying to nuance the formula to take account of almost every need, and what we ought to get back to is some might say a brutally rough formula that says that you have responsibilities to look after your children, the best way of doing that is through the tax system, you pay additional tax, just as people pay additional taxes who have taken grants out to go to university, and have to repay them. Simple as that, and all the extra energy of the Agency can then go in trying to increase, year by year, the number of parents who at the moment refuse to pay, to get them to pay. Chris Lowe Ray Mellor, are you happy with that, because the change that is coming many would describe as brutally rough? Ray Mellor
Frank Field But Ray, can I come back to you, whats happening at the moment because there is no money coming in the taxpayers are footing the bill. Its not free money, its money that my constituents have to earn and willingly pay, to raise children who are in this vulnerable position. When parents start to pay, it is quite proper that the bill on the taxpayer should be reduced. It shouldnt be on top of what taxpayers pay. Chris Lowe Ray? Ray Mellor
Frank Field Well, there is actually a disregard. But the basic fact is that people get this money because their income is inadequate and its made up to a minimum level through the benefits system. And the rules are, for example if you are benefits and working, after a small sum of money the money is clawed back pound for pound. And we clearly cannot create and should not create a special category for single parents whose father of their children wont pay their whack. Chris Lowe OK, Barry Pearson? Barry Pearson I have to disagree to some extent on this one, simply because probably more than half of the benefits cases will not actually result in a calculation that exceeds this £10 limit. There isnt enough money around in many cases for the Treasury actually to get a significant amount of money back. It just isnt there in the separated family. It is for a minority of cases, but for the majority of cases it simply isnt there, yet they get sucked into the system. Chris Lowe Generally, Im not just talking for your benefit but generally, will absent parents, largely fathers, as a result of this change thats coming in, have to pay more than they did already? Barry Pearson About a third will have to pay more and about two-thirds less thats the sort of estimate. Chris Lowe And the third who have to pay more, why do they have to pay more? Barry Pearson There are various conditions. One is if they currently have high housing costs. That is taken into account in the current formula; it isnt taken into account in the new formula. Thats one case. Another case is that the new system has higher caps, higher upper limits. Chris Lowe Do you think its fairer the new system? Barry Pearson Phew - I dont know how to define fair in this whole matter because youve got at least 3 points of view all pulling in different directions. Chris Lowe Ray, you dont think its fair? Ray Mellor
Chris Lowe Frank Field, that doesnt sound, we mustnt get into individual cases, but that doesnt sound entirely fair. Frank Field No. But of course it is the individual cases that in the end build up and make the rules. The argument I put forward again is for simple tax rates. There will be some people who for various reasons decide to spend more of their income on housing and less on holidays. Some will spend more on holidays and less on housing. I dont think thats relevant to devising a formula to actually try and foot part of the bill that currently taxpayers meet. I come back therefore to the simplest of all formulas which we know could work would be an additional tax rate with the Treasury running that because that is the Agency that collects money. The Department of Work and Pensions has great expertise, but it is actually in paying money out, not in collecting it. Chris Lowe Barry Pearson? Barry Pearson I believe the main problem that Ray faces is not necessarily totally incompatible with what youre saying. The problem is that because of the loophole it is all happening much too fast too fast for people to adapt. The governments intention was that where there was a big difference in the payment, it could be phased in over 5 years. Then the loophole that Ray is about to be subjected to is going to suddenly give him no time to adjust his housing costs, which takes a long time to do. Chris Lowe Frank Field, is there a system & is this part of the role of the system to try to ensure that the relationship between the parents, the separated or divorced parents or partners, is not made worse but is actually made better in the interests of the children? Is there a role for the CSA in that, and does it do it? Frank Field I dont think there is a role for the CSA in that, and they certainly dont do it. Clearly, what we have to bring home to people is that, while it may be convenient for grown-ups to break up, it is a hugely devastating experience for most children. Particularly then if one partner denies access to a husband who the courts say is a perfectly proper person that should actually be seeing their children. Now that is not a role for the CSA to try to mediate or do anything about that &. Chris Lowe No, but the system shouldnt make to worse, should it? Frank Field It shouldnt & well & the sad fact is that when someone breaks up and moves off and starts another family, their primary loyalty will be to that new family and not to their first family. There will be honourable exceptions, but thats the general rule. And therefore what weve got to have is I think is a simple tax system which says to people how you run your lives in this respect, your grown up thats nothing to do with us, but you shouldnt put the whole bill of your changing preferences onto taxpayers. Chris Lowe Ray Mellor, briefly would you settle for that? Ray Mellor
Chris Lowe Barry Pearson, last word? Barry Pearson I would like to comment on something that Frank said there. He talked about the court system and how contact is arranged and enforced and so on. I actually believe that some of the key problems of the child support system are in areas which are not directly to do with child support. The Working Families Tax Credit system changed the rules and actually improved the child support system without changing the child support legislation. Change the court system, improve the benefits or do the sort of things that Frank is talking about, and do some changes to the formula, and gradually move forward like that. Chris Lowe Fair old shopping list, Barry. Thank you very much indeed. Plenty to think about. That Im afraid is all from Agenda this week. Thank you to my guests Frank Field, MP, in Westminster, to Ray Mellor in Manchester, and Barry Pearson here. |
| Page last updated: 6 July, 2004 | © Copyright Barry Pearson 2003 |