Lords reject child support plans

25 January 2012 Last updated at 17:42 ET

 

The Welfare Reform Bill has already run into trouble in the Lords

The coalition has suffered its biggest defeat in the Lords since being elected over plans to charge single parents to use the Child Support Agency.

An amendment by Conservative peer Lord Mackay was backed by 270 votes to 128 - the largest in a series of defeats for the Welfare Reform Bill.

He argued it was unfair to charge lone parents who had tried and failed to get their ex-partners to pay maintenance.

The government said it would seek to overturn the defeat.

On Monday, the government was defeated in the Lords in a vote on its plans for a £26,000-a-year household benefit cap.

That amendment, put forward by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, was backed by Labour, Lib Dem and crossbench peers, but the government has insisted it will press ahead with the plan.

Wednesday's defeat over child support was by a majority of 142 - the previous largest defeat was a loss by 112 votes on plans to abolish the chief coroner.

The BBC's political correspondent Ben Geoghegan said the latest defeat was particularly significant, not just because of its scale but because the rebellion was led by a former Conservative minister and supported by so many party grandees.

The list of Tory rebels included former ministers Lord Lawson and Lord Carrington - who, like Lord Mackay, both served under Margaret Thatcher.

Cross-party support

The current system costs the taxpayer £460m a year and ministers say it leaves 1.5 million children without effective financial support.

They want to encourage parents to come to their own arrangements rather than relying on the state to set child maintenance payments.

They are seeking to introduce an up front charge of £100 or £50 plus a levy of up to 12% on maintenance payments if a single parent had taken "reasonable" steps to get the other parent to come to a voluntary agreement on child support.

The government says the poorest parents will only have to pay £20 up front and charges will not apply in cases where there has been domestic violence.

But Lord Mackay said: "I am entirely in favour of that but if that proves impossible where the woman is at the stage where there is nothing more she can do, the only thing she can do is pay.

"And what does that do? If anything that might make her not go to the Child Support Agency at all and the child may lose their maintenance."

Labour peer Lord Morris said he was "aghast" at the plan, asking: "What is the purpose of imposing on the most vulnerable people a charge of this kind?"

Tory peer Lord Newton of Braintree said he had "no problem with the case for reform", but the proposals were "not just".

Cross-bencher Baroness Butler-Sloss, a former family barrister and judge, said there were fathers "who would simply not pay".

She told peers: "The idea that a mother in very poor circumstances, where the father has left her with young children, who finds herself having to seek social benefit from the state which she may not have sought before ... she then has to pay a fee for the welfare of her children, where she may not have any money and he may have some, it is profoundly unfair."

'Financial incentive'

Speaking on behalf of the government, minister Lord De Mauley said Lord Mackay's amendment would require the state "to try to arbitrate" on whether a parent had taken reasonable steps.

He said parents could challenge the decision, adding to the "cost and complexity" of the system, and even if they were allowed to offer a "self-declaration" that they had taken all reasonable steps, the scheme would cost £200 million to the end of March 2019.

He said there must be a "clear financial incentive" to encourage parents to reach their own maintenance settlements, adding: "We no longer require parents to use the CSA. We do not want it to be the default option.

"We don't want to return to the days when the state is encouraging parents to blame each other."

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "We are disappointed that the Lords seem content to leave in place a system that has consistently failed children and we will seek to overturn this in the House of Commons.

"Our reforms would see a doubling of support for families going through a break-up to come to their own financial arrangements with a far improved statutory scheme in place for those that really need it.

"It is right and fair that there is a charge for using a service that can cost the taxpayer around £25,000 per case and almost half a billion pounds per year."

Continue Reading... Labels: child, Lords, plans, reject, support

Councils 'may reject tax freeze'

23 November 2011 Last updated at 21:48 ET

Prime Minister David Cameron warned that councils that rejected the offer were making "a huge mistake"

Up to a fifth of councils in England may not accept the government's offer to help pay for a freeze in council tax next year, a survey suggests.

Research by the Local Government Chronicle found that 4% of respondents had already decided against a freeze.

A further 16% said they were still thinking about the offer, which ministers cannot force them to accept.

Local Government Minister Bob Neill accused councils shunning the freeze of "contempt for hard-working families".

At last month's Conservative Party conference, Chancellor George Osborne said he was making £805m available to enable councils to extend a council tax freeze from 2011-12 to 2012-13.

The government said the money would be paid for through efficiencies and involve one-off grants to local authorities to absorb planned tax rises of up to 2.5%.

Money is also being offered to the Scottish and Welsh administrations, which will choose how it is spent.

'Brighton criticised'

But, according to the chronicle's research, based on responses from 146 local authority finance directors, 116 said their councils would implement the freeze, six councils said they would refuse and 24 remained undecided.

It said many councils were concerned that if council tax was frozen next year, they may have to raise it abruptly the following year.

Of those who expressed an opinion on the knock-on effects of accepting the cash, 29% predicted a bigger rise in subsequent years, 18% predicted additional savings or cuts and 18% said there would be no effect.

Councils in London and the South East were most likely to implement the freeze, with the North East showing most doubt, the survey suggested.

Brighton and Hove Council, run by the Green party, has already decided it will increase council tax by 3.5% next year and has been criticised by the prime minister.

'Huge mistake'

"It is a decision for individual councils," David Cameron said at prime minister's questions on Tuesday.

"If they want the money to go ahead with the council tax freeze, the money is there, but if they reject it, as they plan to in Brighton, that is a huge mistake, because the council will be asking families in Brighton to pay more at a time when it should be on their side."

Among those expressing doubts to the Local Government Chronicle, two-thirds were Conservative-controlled councils.

Last year, the scheme was adopted across England meaning average Band D bills remained at £1,439 following significant rises in previous years.

But changes to the terms of the offer have left local politicians concerned about the longer-term implications of repeating the exercise.

Unlike the previous tranche, there will be no funds provided to protect councils against knock-on effects of the freeze in future years, local government bosses have warned.

'No sense'

One finance director of a Tory-controlled district told the chronicle that the deal "financially makes no sense" and would result in a bigger-than-planned hike the following year.

Local Government Minister Bob Neill said: "Under Labour, council tax more than doubled, pushing typical bills to £120 a month.

"This government is helping freeze council tax for two years, as well as abolishing Labour's plans for an expensive council tax revaluation which would force up bills.

"Town hall bureaucrats who want to hike the cost of living and shun the freeze are showing contempt for hard-working families and pensioners."

Labour has said the freeze would save people about £72 a year.

Continue Reading... Labels: Councils, freeze', reject