Q&A with Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller on child support changes

Former_MSE_Wendy

[title=http://images2.moneysavingexpert.com/images/dp/wtd_underline.gif] What’s this all about?
[/title]
The government is planning a major change to the child maintenance system in England, Wales and Scotland for parents that separate, and is currently consulting until 7 April on the changes.

The changes will affect both those already using the Child Support Agency and those who may use the new system in the future.

The intention is to help parents make their own arrangements where possible so that better support can be provided, via a statutory service, to those who can’t. Using the statutory service will probably cost around £100, reduced for those on a low income.

DWPs actual description of the main proposals are:

• To change the structure of applying for child maintenance to encourage and support choice through a mandatory gateway which will signpost to support and advice for parents to come to their own arrangements.
• Develop further the service that encourages the transfer of monies directly between parents (maintenance direct) and a calculation only service to further support robust and independent family-based arrangements.
• Rebalancing the system further with the introduction of application charges to ensure that in all circumstances, applicants consider their maintenance choices fully by paying a proportion of the cost of their application.
• To reinforce this and to ensure better value for money for the taxpayer, a collection charge will be paid by both the non-resident parent and the parent with care if they use the collection service.
• To impose charges on non-resident parents where enforcement action is required against them to promote compliance with payment of maintenance.

[title=http://images2.moneysavingexpert.com/images/dp/wtd_underline.gif] Q&A with Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller[/title]
[IMGRIGHT]http://images.moneysavingexpert.com/images/MariaMiller.jpg[/IMGRIGHT]
Update 4 April 2011: Maria Miller has answered a selection of ten questions from MoneySavers covering a range of issues from the consultation. Some of the more technical questions were too specific to be answered here but we hope you find the answers interesting...

Q. Why are you proposing to charge parents to get maintenance?

A. More than 3 million children live in separated families, but only around 50% have an effective maintenance arrangement. The current system leaves families with little choice but to rely on the state to make arrangements for them, which takes responsibility away from parents and encourages conflict and hostility, with the Child Support Agency (CSA) often seen as a threat to be used by couples.

The new system will be giving initial free ‘gateway’ support to parents to make family-based maintenance arrangements, which is central to our reforms, and also signposting parents to other charities and third-sector organisations.

If parents are unable to come to their own arrangements using this support, then there will be a charge, reduced for those on benefits, for the new ‘statutory service’. This will ensure a balance between providing a significantly improved service for parents who need it and encouraging parents to reach their own arrangements.


Q. What will happen to existing cases?

A. No CSA cases will be transferred to the new scheme. What we’re proposing is a clean break with the past. The current CSA schemes will be gradually closed down and parents will be helped and supported to make their own maintenance arrangements whenever possible.

However, parents who can’t sort it out themselves will be invited to apply to the future child maintenance scheme which will replace the CSA schemes. These will be entirely new cases – there will be no mass migration from one system to another. That was a disaster last time it was attempted, as many of you know all too well.


Q. What will happen to outstanding arrears owed by non-resident parents?

A. We are not going to write off any of this money. The £3.8 billion in arrears is the legacy of the CSA’s past failures. It’s not grown for three years because the Agency has got better at chasing debt and has taken on new powers – like the ability to deduct money from bank accounts.

Realistically though, we have to acknowledge that the longer arrears have gone unpaid the less likely they are to be recovered. If the parent with care still wants it to pursue that money, the CSA and its successors will continue to do what they can to help.

That is why I’ve appointed a panel of experts to look into what we can do to get as much of that money to families as possible.


Q. Under the reforms, will there be an online calculator on the website for parents to use?

A. The CSA and Child Maintenance Options websites already have a calculator and it’s very popular with parents who want to negotiate. But it can only provide an estimate of how much would be payable under the statutory scheme.

The new ‘calculation only service’ goes beyond the online calculators to provide an actual assessment based on the non-resident parent’s income. It will use the latest information from HM Revenue and Customs - which wouldn’t otherwise be available to both parents and include a tracing service for parents who cannot get in touch with each other.


Q. Are there any proposals in place to stop non-resident parents avoiding their responsibility such as moving and working abroad and those who become self employed?

A. We are all amazed and saddened at the lengths some parents will go to avoid paying for their children. Using information from HM Revenue and Customs, we will make the maintenance service much less dependent on what non-resident parents choose to disclose about their incomes. For example, there will be less opportunity to exclude sources of income from the maintenance calculation.

The CSA has never had the powers or the resources to pursue parents who choose to flee the country. But you will still be able to use the courts to enforce maintenance in countries where reciprocal arrangements with the UK are in place.


Q. There have been lots of media stories about system failures – will this continue to happen?

A. There are now a staggering 100,000 cases having to be managed off the main computer systems and the cost to the taxpayer is unacceptable. With hundreds of cases still getting ‘stuck’ every month, we have no choice but to replace it.

But in preparing the new system we are taking steps to minimise the risks. I’ve already mentioned how there will be no mass migration of cases. We’re also using proven, off-the shelf software used by private companies and banks around the world rather than trying to build an entirely new system from scratch.


Q. Why should a non-resident parent pay towards the parent with care’s mortgage/rent/utility bills when they too have their own bills to pay?

A. Raising a child is expensive and it is only fair that both parents contribute to all the costs – including housing costs and utility bills, not just the things only used by the children. We need to encourage and support parents to work together and put a maintenance arrangement in place that really works.

One of the great things about a family based arrangement is that parents are free to decide how the financial contributions are spent. I know one non-resident parent who has agreed to pay for the extras such as music lessons, after-school clubs and school trips.

This isn’t going to work for everyone and some parents with care need more essential financial support to keep a roof over their children’s heads but th free ‘gateway’ service will offer parents ideas and tips on different ways they can organise their family based arrangements, perhaps ones that they hadn’t thought of before.


Q. Why are parents with care allowed to receive child maintenance on top of benefits?

A. Child Maintenance isn’t a state benefit, such as Income Support or Jobseeker’s Allowance, nor is it an income for the parent with care. The Government think it is a necessary financial contribution that is essential in paying for a child’s upbringing.


Q. Why isn’t there a flat rate for maintenance, to stop any confusion over calculations?

A. One of the concerns around having a flat rate of maintenance is that a non resident parent who is earning the minimum wage, for example, will contribute the same amount as a higher rate tax payer. Some parents argue this is unfair and that their contribution should be means-tested on their income.


Q. Why can’t we scrap the CSA and any new systems like it?

A. As we know not all parents take responsibility and it is in those situations that the Government should offer a maintenance service so that children receive the money owed to them. It is for this reason that we need to keep a statutory maintenance service for parents who cannot agree their own arrangements.

[title=http://images2.moneysavingexpert.com/images/dp/wtd_underline.gif] How to have your say[/title]
If you’d like to comment on the full consultation see the DWP Strengthening families consultation page.

[signupbox]test[/signupbox]

mrsspendalot

I have already read and responded to the consultation.

I would like to know what will happen to outstanding arrears owed by NRPs when the existing CSA cases begin to get closed? Will they still be enforced or will they be written off?

**Patty**

Firstly, will ALL existing CSA cases be migrated to the new system and how long will this take?

Secondly, the 1 and ONLY reason my case is with the CSA is because my ex-husband would not/could not stick to our private arrangement. Upon reading, it would seem I am now going to be charged due to being forced to using an outside agency to collect child maintenance all because of his non-compliance. Would it not be a fairer point to charge whichever parent (resident or non-resident) does not comply?

Orson_Cart_2

There has been two previous threads on this subject. The same board guide deleted the first, then moved the second thread into the wrong forum.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=41331246&postcount=47

Matt_Fry

Heres my list of question for the good work & pensions minister. You now have a chance to make law - make it a good one.



1) Currently PWCs can claim child support to improve their quality of life and there is no correlation between a working parents income and the actual cost of bringing up children. The government official position on a childs actual financial needs is represented by Child tax credits. Therefore, can child maintenance liabilities be linked to the actual needs of the child?


2) Can new legislation allow NRP a working income that is significantly greater than he would otherwise receive if he claims benefits?


3) Can you end the policy allowing PWC to receive money as child support while claiming the same from state benefits concurrently? This only stimulates single parent families and NRP commit benefit fraud if he did the same.



4) Can you train CSA caseworkers to use actual evidence and not rely on PWC hearsay when making a decision that will require an NRP to makeover a greater money transfer than he would otherwise make?


5) Can you introduce a fairer child maintenance system that does not encourage NRPs to opt out of the UK tax system and joining the hidden-economy or getting work on more hospitable shores?


6) Can you Repeal Section 33(4) of the Child Support Act 1991 and allow courts to order the CSA to comply with regulations if a liability amount is wrong? and the NRP should be informed of this right in large-print format on the prescribed Liability Order Application notice document.


7) Can you introduce a rule that CSA liability is not disregarded when calculating an NRPs net income when he claims a prescribed benefit? All other statutory liabilities (e.g. tax) are counted when calculating his net income.


8) Can you introduce fraud prevention and deterrent into child support claims regulations in-keeping with claiming prescribed benefits? Introduce a rule the PWC and CSA caseworkers to have equal criminal liability as the NRP for false representation and for failure to disclose/concealment of information or evidence under the 2006 Fraud Act. The current rules only serve to encourage PWCs and caseworkers to obtain money unlawfully knowing they have immunity from criminal prosecution.


9) Can you introduce a rule that childrens tax credits are payable to all working parents? Its Currently unavailable to parents not living with their children and the NRPs income is taxed twice.


10) Can you introduce a fairer compensation scheme and damages for CSA error, negligence and misfeasance and award the sum of actual and physical losses incurred? - Currently its according to prescribed tokenary amounts.


11) Current regulations prevent benefits and housing being awarded to persons whose circumstances as an unemployed/homeless person are self inflicted. Can we extend this rule to PWCs to they can claim child maintenance provided their circumstances as a single parent are not self-inflicted?


12) Can you enable the availability of Judicial Review to all parties irrespective of their financial means? There is no point in having it if its not available.


13) Can you extend legal aid and access to free legal advice to NRPs on an equal basis as PWCs and the CSA.


14) Can you introduce a rule that places the burden of proof with the accuser and not with the accused when a person is deemed liable for maintenance and is required to finance a DNA test? Limited financial means to fund DNA test can result in a false liability being imposed. E.g. the Robinson case


15) Can you introduce a rule for parents claiming child support from the state but fail to identify or conceal the other parents identity will forfeit their claim for state support.


16) Can you introduce a new rule allowing DNA records contained in the Police National Database be used to identify parentage or settle disputed parentage?


17) Can you extend train CSA staff to give the same level of advice to NRPs on saving money as it currently does to PWCs on obtaining money on an non sex discriminatory basis?


18) Can you introduce a new rule the NRP does not have to comply with any child maintenance regulation if the CSA doesnt.


19) Can you introduce a new rule that requires the CSA or a Tribunal to explain a decision quoting regulations and evidence they relied upon, or allow the NRP to disregard that decision until that explanation is made?


20) Can you create a link between child maintenance paid by an NRP and prevention of contact with the same children by the PWC? This is to follow EU legislation which makes absent parents liable for child maintenance but not excluded parents.


21) Can you change taxation regulations so PWC pays income tax on income and not the NRP? It makes sense because it is the PWCs income and currently the PWC claims tax credits.


22) Can you amend Section 33 of the Child Support Act so it is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and current council tax enforcement legislation. Insert between (2) and (3). - (3) before an application for a liability order the Agency shall serve on the person against whom the application is to be made a notice in respect of an amount at any time after it has become due


23) Can you update child support legislature so it is compliant with Protocols 4, 7 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights?


24) Can you train CSA staff on the meaning of Primary legislation and secondary legislation? Currently the CSA is using secondary legislation to rebuke an Act of Parliament which in any event predates the CSA without first repealing it namely Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980.

DX2

Alternatively Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller has agreed to answer a few questions from MoneySavers about the planned changes, so post your questions below and we’ll pass some of the questions on to her.

That will be interesting....

PreludeForTimeFeelers

mrsspendalot wrote: »

I have already read and responded to the consultation.

I would like to know what will happen to outstanding arrears owed by NRPs when the existing CSA cases begin to get closed? Will they still be enforced or will they be written off?

I was at a meeting regarding the changes, and the outstanding arrears will still be enforced, nothing will be written off.

The current intention is for all new cases to be put onto this 'future scheme', and then for the older CSA1 and CSA2 cases to be closed, and the clients encouraged to either come to a private agreement or to apply to join the 'future scheme'.

I don't know what the time scales are going to be, but I think they said it will be at least six months after the new scheme is launched when the first conversions will start.

mrsspendalot

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

I was at a meeting regarding the changes, and the outstanding arrears will still be enforced, nothing will be written off.

The current intention is for all new cases to be put onto this 'future scheme', and then for the older CSA1 and CSA2 cases to be closed, and the clients encouraged to either come to a private agreement or to apply to join the 'future scheme'.

I don't know what the time scales are going to be, but I think they said it will be at least six months after the new scheme is launched when the first conversions will start.

That is reassuring, thanks :cool:

mrsspendalot

Regarding closure of existing cases, will CSA1 cases be prioritised over CSA2 cases?

Will a reassessment due to a change of circumstances trigger the earlier move to the new system/closure of the case, or will it be held on the existing system until such time it would have been selected for closure anyway?

CornishBloke29

It would be easier just to place a new Act of Parliament to simplify CSA reforms. Just call it the Vexatious Legisation Act 2012.


DRAFT

Section

1. If any law or regulation


i) is frivolous or vexatious

ii) requires a person to provide information or evidence to an authority it already knows or has

iii) requires a person to communicate with a different authority or department capable of communicating between themselves sharing similar contact details and uses the same terminology

iv) requires a person to pay a fee to telephone a authority using a chargeable telephone number

v) that is treated as discretionary by an autority in some cases but not in others

vi) enables an authority to make a decision having no right of appeal for a person without financial means to avail himself to that appeals process

vii) is not compatible with Article 6 and Protocols 4, 7 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights

viii) requires a person to be detained for political gain or for obtaining a money transfer from him or his family (kidnap & ransom) and has not been convicted of an offence or awaiting trial for an offence or is a danger to himself or the general public

iix) enables an authority to force a person to obtain a credit money transfer or enter into a regulated credit agreement under duress contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974


then that law or regulation may be disregarded.



2. The Child Support Act 1991 be merged with the Terrorism Act 2000 as they perform the same function of collecting and storing data on people regardless whether or not that data is accurate

This Act may be cited as the Vexatious Legisation Act 2012.

Laid before Parliament.

mrsspendalot

CornishBloke29 wrote: »

It would be easier just to place a new Act of Parliament to simplify CSA reforms. Just call it the Vexatious Legisation Act 2012.

:rotfl:This made me chuckle :rotfl: