Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Grand Committee

I could go on for a long while but I will not. Finally, can the Minister say anything about the disappointing number of people who were invited to join the new scheme once the old scheme closed? In the last figures I looked at, which the NAO referred to as well, the department expected far more people to volunteer with a fresh application to go on to the new scheme. The results were very disappointing. The number of family-made arrangements that flowed from that was also very disappointing. The suspicion in my mind is still that a lot of families out there have given up and there are no arrangements. That is a tragedy in anticipation of increased child poverty statistics over the next couple of years for families under a lot of pressure. Is the Minister happy to write to me if she does not have the information to hand? The hour is late and I am sorry to detain the Committee but this debate is important. I would be much happier supporting the regulations if I knew that there was a wider parliamentary context that could help us to understand in more detail the full consequences of the major change that is about to happen.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations. I also wish that she is back to full ambulatory health soon. I was glad to have the opportunity to give her advance notice of the questions I will raise because some of them are quite technical. It would be great if she could answer them but if not, she should feel free to write to me.

Before I start, I want to pick on where the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, stopped. Most of the people in the House of Lords who have a passionate interest in this are in this room, apart from one or two who could not be here. We have been discussing these issues for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, saying that he has moved on to a different perspective makes me want to rehearse briefly the fact that having an administrative system of child maintenance is incredibly important. Before it existed, the only way for single parents to get the money they needed to raise their kids was to go to court. It was expensive to get an order, to get it updated and to get it enforced, so the creation of an administrative system of child support really matters. It matters for those kids, the families and the country. It is a statement that you may separate from your partner but you do not cease to be responsible for your children, and the state will enforce that if necessary if the parents cannot afford to do so. I want to lay that on the record.

We should also note that, although the legacy schemes have had a range of problems, billions of pounds have changed hands and gone towards raising children. We should mark that. We should not say simply assume that the problems mean that we do not want to get this right going forward. The obligation to support your children is there, so I share the view that it would be good to have an opportunity to discuss more broadly the issues around child support policy. However, since Parliament has determined the amounts that should be paid by non-resident parents to parents with care, getting that enforced really matters and the regulations address that. In the light of that, I should flag up a historic and now rather distant remunerated interest as I was a non-executive director of CMEC for a time.

In essence, these regulations do two things. They allow the Government to write off significant debts arising from historic schemes and they introduce some new compliance measures to help with collecting future child maintenance. I want to look at each of those in turn to see whether it feels like a balanced package.

First, on the debt proposals, the Explanatory Memorandum says that there are uncollected arrears of £3.7 billion, with £2.5 billion owed to parents and £1.2 billion owed to the Government. DWP thinks that it would be too expensive to try to collect all this, so it proposes to separate the debt into two parts: that which it will make one last attempt to collect and that which it will simply write off. Where there has not been a payment in the last three months and, as the Minister explained, a CSA case started on or before 1 November 2008 and the debt is more than £1,000, or the case started after that date and the debt is more than £500, it will ask clients if they want it to try to collect the debt. If no representations are received, or collection of the debt is not possible, it may be written off. Can the Minister tell us how those representations will be sought? Will each parent to whom money is owed be written to individually?

Secondly, where there has been no payment in the last three months and the case started on or before 1 November 2008 and the debt is less than £1,000, or the case started after 1 November 2008 and the debt is less than £500, or the debt is less than £65, then the debt can be written off without asking the parents at all. Can the Minister tell us, if there had been a payment of some sort in the last three months, irrespective of how much was involved or when it started, would attempts carry on being made to collect the debt, even if it did not meet these criteria? If so, is there not a risk of what is known in the trade as moral hazard? In other words, does it not risk sending out a message to parents who have not paid to support their kids that if they simply do not pay for long enough, the Government will give up and they will benefit from having the debt written off?

To justify writing off historic debt while avoiding the moral hazard charge, it is incumbent on the Government to show that current child maintenance liabilities are being effectively enforced—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. So is that the case? As the noble Lord mentioned, the current rate of compliance is 57% and it has been static for the last two years. Ministers are partly arguing that these regulations would add to the range of collection and enforcement powers the department has to drive up that statistic. Let us see whether we think they would.

There are basically three measures. First, the deductions from joint and unlimited partnership accounts, which is a welcome measure designed to prevent non-resident parents from evading their financial obligations by moving all their money into joint or unlimited partnership accounts. However, I would like to raise a point made in paragraph 11 of the 39th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It reports a concern—raised in a submission to the committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood sits—that the proposal to notify the other account holders of the intention to make regular or lump sum deductions and give them a set period to make representations could give the non-resident parent time to move the cash somewhere else.

The committee noted that the regulations provide that the interim order must include an instruction to the deposit-taker not to do anything that would reduce the amount standing to the credit of the account below the amount specified in the order. However, the Explanatory Memorandum also goes on to say that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary—the Minister reinforced this today—it will be assumed that the NRP has a share of the funds equal to that of any other account holder. So, if the deposit-taker is required only to keep in the account an amount equivalent to that specified in the order, is there not a risk that, in some cases, only a portion of that retained balance can be attributed to the non-resident parent, and therefore, when it comes to the attempt to reclaim it, there will not be enough left to meet the debt? What are the Government doing about that? I did say this was technical.

Secondly, I want to look at the effect of this measure. The self-certified impact assessment says that DWP expects that the use of this measure will result in 350 requested deduction orders from joint personal accounts in England and Wales per year and 170 from unlimited partnership business accounts. Based on the pattern of their use for sole accounts, DWP assumed 34% will be lump sum deduction orders and 66% regular deduction orders, and it expects a 60% success rate. When you crunch these numbers down—which I did because I am very sad—it means that, adding together personal joint accounts and unlimited partnership business joint accounts, you get a total of basically not very much. My sums suggested this meant that the department expected to issue only 100 successful lump-sum DOs and 200 successful regular DOs, which would have brought in about £350,000 a year in extra child maintenance.

However, about half an hour before I came into the Committee, I saw a letter—just published—from Justin Tomlinson to Frank Field, chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, in which he said that DWP analysis after the consultation estimated that these new powers would actually enable an extra 400 to 500 actions per year, yielding around £840,000 in additional maintenance. The letter said that the department thought the figure might be even higher still. Can the Minister tell the Grand Committee the current estimate of the number of cases in which these powers are likely to be used, and how much extra maintenance the department expects to collect?

Another question is on the confiscation of passports. The instrument also commences a power, set out in Sections 39B to 39G of the Child Support Act 1991, enabling the Secretary of State to apply to the court for an order to disqualify a non-resident parent who is wilfully refusing to pay from holding or obtaining a UK passport. This is again welcome but I wonder how well it would be used. The 39th report of the scrutiny committee quoted the department as saying:

“This measure will be used as a last resort, where all other enforcement actions have been found to be inappropriate or ineffective”.


When I went back to the methodology document that accompanied the consultation, it said that DWP expected approximately 20 cases per year where a court sanction would be applied. But then it became clear that that would be not 20 passports a year but 20 cases where court sanctions could be applied. Those sanctions might be passport removal but might be losing a driving licence or going to prison. That could mean this new power on passports might be in single-figure usage.

Again, the letter to Frank Field from Justin Tomlinson suggested that this power could be used in around 20 cases a year. Can the Minister explain whether that is 20 cases of passport confiscation a year or whether we are still talking about 20 cases of court sanctions a year, of which some may or may not be on passports? Either way, it is a very small number. Clearly, I realise that it is intended to be a deterrent as well but that was said of driving licences, yet we are still stuck at 57% enforcement. We have to ask: how effective is this likely to be?

The third and final category is on including major assets in the calculation of child maintenance liabilities. There has been lots of pressure on DWP for a long time to reinstate the lifestyle variation available under the previous regime, by which parents could request a variation to the calculation based on a disparity between the lifestyle of a non-resident parent and the income which they reported. Charities such as Gingerbread, along with the Work and Pensions Select Committee, have pressed DWP on this but to no avail. One of the presenting problems has been parents complaining that the NRP claims to have a low income, yet possesses considerable assets and a lifestyle that should be impossible on the income that he or she is declaring.

However, DWP decided not to do that. This is one of its proposals to deal with it instead by including major assets in the calculation of child maintenance liabilities. That is welcome but the scrutiny committee remains concerned about how it is to be done—a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who mentioned yachts. I do not often get to talk about yachts in my brief but it is the case that a specific submission was made to the committee of a parent who said that her former spouse had bought a yacht, yet nobody could make him pay over the amount of cash he was meant to do as support for the children.

It would seem from that case that there is a real situation out there. Yet in its 41st report, the committee managed to establish from DWP that the definition of asset does not include high-value items such as a yacht or a Rolls-Royce, because it is too hard to value them. In fact, the report said:

“This would seem to confirm our concern that the Non-Resident Parent can find ways of avoiding payment by buying goods with their cash assets and reinforces our view that the new formula for calculating income may make little actual difference”.


Given that that is the whole point of this power, can the Minister explain how the Government plan to deal with this issue and, again, how often DWP anticipates using these provisions?

In conclusion, we are in a position where compliance rates are stuck at 57%. I am doubtful that the package of powers we are discussing are likely to make all that much difference given that the biggest of them will, in the original calculations, affect only 450 children and bring in £350,000 a year. Alongside that, the Government are planning to write off debts of £3.7 billion, so basically we are talking about 0.01% of the amount that has been written off. Even if it is the higher £840,000 figure, my back-of-an-envelope calculations say that we are still talking about 0.02%. There is quite an imbalance.

I remain concerned about those who are slipping through the net—the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, raised this. In 2012, DWP estimated that 56% of CSA clients who chose not to apply to the statutory service would make a family-based arrangement. A survey by NatCen conducted between June 2015 and September 2016 found that three months after the CSA cases had been closed, only 18% had a family-based arrangement in place. A similar number had gone to the CMS but 56% had nothing in place.