Child Support (Enforcement) Bill

Debate between Karen Buck and Mark Tami

3rd reading
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

We all know that being a single parent increases the risk of falling into poverty, and that is even more the case when an absent parent does not fulfil their maintenance obligations. We all wish it were not so, but it is, as we know; we have heard examples in contributions this morning and I am sure all of us know from our casework that there are occasions when the absent parent, usually, but not always, the father, will act abominably in seeking to avoid their obligations. I have certainly had such instances in my constituency—and not always, it has to be said, involving those on the lowest incomes.

Labour completely supports the principle that non-resident parents should meet their responsibilities for child maintenance and that where they fail to do so the state needs to step in to enforce payment. As has been reinforced this morning, timely meeting of responsibilities is crucial, because when payments fall behind and the parent with care has to take action and wait for payments, that can cause financial distress and massive psychological distress. So I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on introducing the Bill and the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) on stepping up this morning and taking it through the final stages.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), the shadow Pensions Minister, said on Second Reading, not only do we support the principle, but we recognise that enforcement of child maintenance obligations needs to be improved. This Bill will improve enforcement. It is a largely technical set of measures, but we hope it will make a significant contribution to speeding up the process by which the absent parent can be made to pay. However, we do not think it will resolve all problems with the CMS. Nor, it is fair to say, is it intended to, as I am sure Conservative Members would agree. I think everyone recognises that we are a very long way from having a Child Maintenance Service that ensures that all absent parents meet their responsibilities and that all families receive the financial support to which they are entitled.

As my hon. Friend the shadow Treasury Minister pointed out in the Committee that considered the Bill, last year’s report by the Public Accounts Committee concluded that, in the 10 years since the Child Support Agency was replaced by the Child Maintenance Service, there has been effectively no improvement in the system for parents, children and families. Around half of children in separated families—1.8 million children—receive no support at all from their non-resident parent.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

We have heard a lot of stories today, and they are always about the very difficult cases, where people work cash in hand, or try to avoid things, and it is important that we pursue those people. We also have people coming to us who say, “I play by rules, but I am pursued all the time, because I am an easy person to get hold of, whereas some of the others are not.”

[Ms Buck]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is really distressing when we see these cases. After separation, often, families will find themselves in financial stress. Even so, many parents will do absolutely everything that they can to put their children first and to meet their obligations. They are of course very angry about the behaviour of those parents who simply do not play by the rules and who, as we have heard, do everything that they can to avoid those commitments—they drop in and out of work, create shadow companies, and conceal their incomes in every way that they can. They do so because, sadly, money is so tied up with emotions after a relationship breakdown that it is often used as a tool to continue to cause emotional damage to those families.

It is concerning that Child Maintenance Service performance seems to have declined over recent years. Of course, enforcement action was negatively affected by the pandemic, as staff had to be redeployed to manage universal credit claims, and the courts were closed. However, performance was already showing a worrying trend before the pandemic, with the number of liability orders in process falling from 6,900 in the first quarter of 2019 to 3,700 in the last quarter of 2019. Things have improved on the most recent data, for the third quarter of 2020, but, at 5,300, numbers remain far below the earlier level. Meanwhile, the number of enforcement agency referrals in process is less than half what it was in 2019. It would therefore be helpful if, in replying, the Minister could update the House on how the Government intend to address these apparent shortfalls in Child Maintenance Service performance since 2018, and reassure the House that this legislation will not lead to any relaxation of efforts to improve performance in the round.

Having said that, I again congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud. I have no doubt that this is important and useful legislation and we on the Labour Benches give it our wholehearted support.

Legal aid

Debate between Karen Buck and Mark Tami

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Ms Buck]

I absolutely agree. I am extremely concerned. In other areas of public policy, we are seeing reductions in housing benefit expenditure and entitlement, which are coming in next year. There is, apparently, a rise in homelessness. There are major changes in housing policy, some of which were announced yesterday, which will lead to homeless households being discharged into the private rented sector, with all the associated risks of that. Yet, at the same time, the representation and advice available to people at the most critical stage of their path through the housing system is being removed. I am sure that the consequences of those changes in policy and the reduction in legal aid representation will be catastrophic for highly vulnerable families, many of which include children with disabilities and special needs. I predict that the changes will explode the budgets associated with local authority responsibilities under the Children Act 2004, as many cases will be referred to local authorities. Once again, this is a false economy.

There are many other things that I would like to say, but I will conclude simply by referring back to the argument of the impact of the cuts on providers. Of course, we have to start from the point of view of the client. The client is the most important, not the provider. However, if a client cannot access a provider, if there is an advice desert and no one within 50 or 100 miles or a reasonable distance for people to afford to get to, then justice is denied to that person. If staff contracts are lost, money withdrawn from a law centre, firm or citizens advice bureau on the piecemeal basis indicated in the proposals, and services are removed—the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) gave a good example—at a time when local authorities are facing record cuts in expenditure, many such services will go under. They will collapse in an unplanned way. There will not be a coherent pattern of advice services, because no one has overall control of ensuring that that happens.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and apologise for my late attendance; I had dreadful problems with my computer. I received an e-mail from Flintshire CAB, which is very worried about losing the equivalent of five posts—a total of £170,000. It deals with some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are often the same people who end up coming to see Members of Parliament. It is worried that the cuts will devastate the area.

[Ms Buck]

That is absolutely right. I shall now sit down to listen to examples from, possibly, both sides of the Chamber. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues to think again about how the changes are being implemented. The dangers are that they will lead to advice deserts and reduced access to justice for many cases—500,000—involving the most vulnerable people. They will lead to the perverse consequence of greater expenditure in many other areas of public services and, because the providers will not be held to account efficiently by lawyers, worse public services. I hope that the Minister will hear not only what I have to say but what other Members have to say, and go back to the Department to ask for an urgent review of the Government’s proposals.