THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

  The Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" (Cm 3992) was published on 6 July 1998. As well as inviting written responses, Ministers met with more than 40 organisations and professionals with an interest in child support. The consultation exercise formally closed on 30 November 1998, although comments continued to be received over the following months.

  Over 300 Members of Parliament responded: the vast majority to forward letters from their constituents although 34 provided their own personal views or responded with the results of consultation exercises held in their constituencies.

  Staff working for the Child Support Agency and the Department's Trade Union Side were fully involved during the consultation period. Ministers met Union representatives and staff with front line experience and also attended the Agency's staff conference. The Agency held a series of roadshows for frontline staff following the publication of the Green Paper to inform staff and to give them the opportunity to discuss the proposals.

THE OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION

  This is a summary of the outcomes of the written consultation exercise. Issues are grouped in line with the chapters in the Green Paper. Annex A contains a list of organisations and professionals with an interest in child support who responded to the Green Paper, excluding those who requested confidentiality. Copies of these responses can be obtained by writing to:

The Child Support Reform Team

2nd Floor, The Adelphi

1-11 John Adam Street

London WC2N 6HT.

OVERALL FINDINGS

  There were a total of 1,564 written responses:

—  1,353 (86 per cent) of these were from the general public;

—  67 from members of staff across the Department of Social Security—the majority from staff within the Child Support Agency;

—  34 from Members of Parliament (other than those forwarding letters from constituents); and

—  110 from organisations and academics.

  Responses which appeared to be written from a non-resident parent's point of view (65 per cent) heavily out-weighed those which appeared to be written from a neutral (17 per cent) or parent with care's point of view (18 per cent).

  The responses to the Green Paper showed there was overwhelming support for the proposals to make major changes to the existing system. The vast majority of specific issues received a mention in less than 10 per cent of replies. The summary of opinions on these issues is therefore based on quite small numbers and where numbers are very small, the detail is not included. Many letters raised more than one point and this, together with the small numbers, means that numbers may not always total.

THE NEED FOR A CULTURE CHANGE

  The Green Paper said:

"We needed a fundamental culture change to convince these non-resident parents that their responsibility to their children did not end when they stopped living with them . . . Unfortunately this culture change did not materialise . . . The complex assessment process baffled non-resident parents . . . Many tried to avoid payment." [Chapter 2, paragraphs 5 to 9]

Written Responses During the Consultation Exercise

  There were 70 responses about co-operation by non-resident parents—40 of these (80 per cent written from the parent with care's point of view) stated that the CSA was failing currently to enforce non-resident parent co-operation. A number of reasons were suggested: the slowness and inefficiency of CSA procedures meant that non-resident parents could simply evade payment; non-resident parents falsely claimed to have no employment, moved from job to job or left work to avoid paying maintenance; others avoided paying arrears, gave false information to the CSA, went abroad, used loopholes to avoid paying or were in collusion with their employer. A few said that garnishee orders and bailiffs were ineffective.

PARENTS WITH CARE

  The Green Paper said:

"The difficulties faced by parents with care are well documented. Parents on Income Support currently see no direct gain for their children from their involvement with the CSA . . . For lone mothers on Income Support the CSA means hassle—but no cash for their children." [Chapter 2, paragraph 13]

Written Responses During the Consultation Exercise

  A few responses mentioned co-operation by parents with care—mostly written from the non-resident parent's point of view. These all concentrated on circumstances in which and reasons why, parents with care were not currently co-operating. For example, parents with care had no financial incentive to co-operate, refused to identify the real father, mistrusted the CSA, did not know where the non-resident parent was or were colluding with the non-resident parent.

SUPPORTING CONTACT ARRANGEMENTS

  The Green Paper said:

"Parents with care sometimes try to avoid their responsibility to support effective contact between their children and the non-resident parent. This is often because they are in a new relationship.

This feeds into child support concerns. Fathers who live part of the time with their children—or who have regular contact with them—have been shown to give more to their children. But contact arrangements need trust on both sides. When there are long running arguments over maintenance or continuing uncertainty about liability, this trust is likely to break down. Fathers who do not get contact with the children often try to withhold maintenance." [Chapter 3, paragraphs 12 and 13]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Ninety-nine responses mentioned linking the payment of maintenance to contact in some way—78 per cent written from the non-resident parent's point of view. 46 specifically said contact should be linked to the payment of maintenance and a further 21 responses specifically spoke of the failure of the courts to enforce contact and parental responsibility orders. A few thought the courts were biased towards a parent with care.

  Other responses suggested specific measures for linking contact and maintenance—a bonus for parents with care who respected a court order, or, if contact was thwarted, a reduction in maintenance payable by a non-resident parent or a penalty paid by the parent with care.

  There were some respondents who said that maintenance and contact should not be linked. Particular reasons suggested were any link between financial support and contact could increase the non-resident parent's power over the lone mother and her children and that these issues were always separate in family law.

A CHILD MAINTENANCE PREMIUM

  The Green Paper said:

"At present the children of lone parents on Income Support see no benefit from any maintenance which is paid . . . Where maintenance is assessed under the new scheme, we will allow the lone parent on Income Support to keep up to £10 per week of maintenance paid . . . That gives lone parents a clear incentive to co-operate with the child support process. And it will help to discourage avoidance . . . A child maintenance premium will also mean that all children will benefit directly from maintenance paid. This will send clear signals to them about the way that the non-resident parent continues to care for them. And fathers will know that they are contributing directly to their children's well-being." [Chapter 3, paragraphs 17 and 18]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Of 123 responses about a child maintenance premium 98 (80 per cent) were in favour. There were only 25 responses against the principle of a child maintenance premium.

  Thirty-seven responses were in favour of a larger child maintenance premium, for example £15 was suggested by 15 organisations. Several non-resident parents were in favour of more money going directly to the parent with care and child(ren) or were against any of their maintenance being offset against Income Support payments. Eleven respondents suggested the amount of the child maintenance premium should be reviewed and uprated regularly whilst others thought that it should increase with the amount of maintenance paid or be introduced sooner than 2001 or when resources allowed.

  Eighteen respondents thought the child maintenance premium would act as an incentive for parents with care to co-operate although a few thought it would be an incentive for parents with care to remain on benefit. Some respondents suggested that a child maintenance premium would encourage non-resident parents to comply although a few took the opposite view and said it would not prevent collusion.

  Nine neutral respondents thought that a child maintenance premium would help tackle child poverty and would benefit the child although there was some concern that there was no guarantee that the money would be spent on the child(ren). A few respondents said that receipt of the child maintenance premium should be conditional on parents with care honouring contact orders or that it should be increased for disabled children.

  A few respondents recognised that many parents with care would receive less than £10 and there were some suggestions that the maintenance premium should be guaranteed.

THE DEFINITION OF "GOOD CAUSE"

  The Green Paper said:

"Parents not the taxpayer should take the primary responsibility for supporting their children. That is why lone parents who claim Income Support. . . can be required to apply for maintenance. We do not intend to change this . . . There will always be circumstances where lone parents have good cause for not seeking child support. . . We are committed to protecting people in these circumstances . . .However, allegations of `good cause' should not be open to abuse by parents who wish to evade their responsibilities for other reasons, such as a desire to keep existing informal maintenance arrangements going. We therefore intend to ensure that the definition of `good cause' is properly framed." [Chapter 3, paragraphs 20 to 22]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  There were 102 responses on the subject of "good cause" (7 per cent of the total response) and the proposed requirement for lone parents who claim Income Support to co-operate in seeking maintenance. Three-quarters of these appeared to be neutral.

  In general, responses suggested an unwillingness to accept that parents with care should be required to seek maintenance in any circumstances. Both parents with care and non-resident parents (as well as many apparently neutral commentators) took the view that child support should be available for those who wished to use it but that the system could only work with the consent of the parents concerned.

  Twenty nine responses commented on the definition of "good cause"—the vast majority written from a neutral point of view. Of these, 22 were opposed to changing the definition of "good cause" raising the need for research into the effects of tightening the definition; further evaluation of the Benefits Agency and Child Support Agency closer working project; concern that tightening the definition would lead to parents with care being obliged to produce evidence of a non-resident parent's violence; or that the provisions provided an incentive for a non-resident parent to commit violence. Only three responses thought the definition should be tightened.

  There were 26 responses on the subject of reduced benefit directions—again the vast majority contained no bias. Nineteen of these did not think the period before the penalty was imposed should be shortened. Some thought that parents with care should not be threatened with an additional penalty because, by claiming "good cause", they would already be forgoing the child maintenance premium. Others stated that many parents with care accepted the benefit penalty rather than involve the CSA and antagonise, or trigger violence by, their ex-partner and that non-co-operation should not be treated in the same way as fraud. Some respondents were against the principle of a reduced benefit direction altogether believing that there should be no penalty and that parents with care should be encouraged to co-operate voluntarily.

  The Green Paper said:

"We know that many parents simply want reliable information—over the phone—about what is happening to their child support. In the future, child support customers will have fast, easy and reliable access to accurate information by phone. And they will deal with . . . a small team able to deal with any aspect of their individual case.

However, parents sometimes want to talk to a member of staff face-to-face. So we will offer both parents with care and non-resident parents local, face-to-face interviews if they want them . . ." [Chapter 4, paragraphs 3 and 4]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  There were 63 responses about the principle of a more localised service—the overwhelming majority were in favour of face-to-face interviews in local offices.

SETTING THE CHILD SUPPORT RATES

  The Green Paper said:

"We will replace the complications of the current formula with a simpler system aimed at providing an excellent service for all parents who use it." [Chapter Five, first bullet point]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Six hundred and fifty responses expressed an opinion about the proposal for a simpler formula—42 per cent of the total responses. Of these, 67 per cent were specifically in favour of a simpler formula. Some respondents, although not disagreeing with the need for a simpler formula, thought that more circumstances should be taken into account.

  The Green Paper said:

"For one child, 15 per cent of weekly income represents a fair balance. Liability increases with the number of children for whom child maintenance is due. So liability for two children will normally be 20 per cent of net income; for three or more children, liability will be 25 per cent." [Chapter 5, paragraph 9]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Two hundred and fifty-four responses (16 per cent of the total response) commented on the percentages of weekly income proposed for child maintenance in the Green Paper—136 (mainly written from the non-resident parent's point of view) thought they were too high, 32 too low and 86 about right.

  Seventy-seven respondents commented on whether there should be a maximum amount of child maintenance payable (5 per cent of the total response). Sixty-four were in favour of a maximum. Of these, 50 appeared to be written from the non-resident parent's point of view and the remaining 14 appeared to be neutral.

PARENTS WITH LOW INCOMES

  The Green Paper said:

"We recognise that non-resident parents who earn very little would find it difficult to pay child support based on a percentage of earnings. So we will ask the lowest paid to pay a fixed minimum amount of child support." [Chapter 5, paragraph 10]

"We plan to keep the current arrangement that non-resident parents on Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance pay a minimum child support contribution. Fathers on benefit have as much of a responsibility for their children's upkeep as those with earned income. Payment of a minimum amount. . . recognises that responsibility, whilst allowing for the limited financial circumstances of the non-resident parent. At present, approximately 60,000 fathers are exempt from paying even the minimum amount of child support. . . We plan to remove virtually all these exemptions. . .Where fathers pay the minimum amount, it will be passed directly to the parent with care as a child maintenance premium for their children." [Chapter 5, paragraphs 20 and 21]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  There were 99 responses about the payment of a minimum amount—84 per cent of these appeared to be written from a non-resident parent's point of view or were neutral.

  Those supporting the principle of payment of a minimum amount said that the payment would have a symbolic value whilst those who were against thought it would drive non-resident parents below the poverty line.

  Individual responses suggested that non-resident parents who had no income at all, were in prison, hospital in patients, in residential care or nursing homes, or under the age of 18 should be exempt from payment.

  A few responses did not think that the exemption from the minimum amount for non-resident parents in receipt of benefit who were disabled or had a second family should be removed. Other suggestions included increases in benefits or financial incentives for non-resident parents to encourage contact with their children. A few responses thought that removing exemptions would discourage non-resident parents from irresponsibly fathering more children.

BALANCING RESPONSIBILITIES TO DIFFERENT FAMILIES

  The Green Paper said:

"We do not want the system to force fathers to choose between supporting their first and second families. And we do not want to see children in a second family impoverished to support the children in the first family." [Chapter 5, paragraph 13]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  One hundred and twenty-eight respondents commented on the balance between first and second families—8 per cent of the full response. One hundred and two of those (mainly written from the non-resident parent's point of view) thought that the number of children should be totalled and maintenance apportioned because it was perceived as fairer and more straightforward.

  Sixty-nine respondents thought that step-children should be included in the calculation whilst 15 thought they should be excluded. Exclusion was generally perceived to be unfair to second families, particularly where the natural parent had died or was avoiding responsibility.

WHAT COUNTS AS INCOME

  The Green Paper said:

". . . we will base maintenance on average income at the point that liability starts. And we would like to use a simple definition of what counts as income. . . .We will also be considering the treatment of pension contributions and such payments as overtime. We would welcome your views on this." [Chapter 5, paragraph 17]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Very few responses specifically commented on the definition of what is to count as income. Comments about the treatment of pensions contributions and overtime payments were more numerous.

Pension Contributions

  A total of 150 responses (10 per cent of the full response) raised the subject of pension contributions, four fifths of which were written from the non-resident parent's perspective. Just under two thirds were in favour of some form of exemption for pension payments whilst one third were specifically in favour of full exemption.

  A third of the responses thought that not excluding pension contributions from net income went against the Government's policy of encouraging private pension provision. Others mentioned that divorce settlements would increasingly include split pension rights and that some work-related pension schemes were mandatory and in some cases (for example the police) contributions were significantly higher than average.

Overtime/Bonus Payments

  There were 124 responses (8 per cent of the full response) on the issue of whether overtime and/or bonus payments should count as income—90 thought these payments should be excluded. Eighty-six per cent of the responses written from a non-resident parent's point of view favoured excluding these payments. Almost half of them specifically spoke about excluding overtime whilst 10 per cent wanted both overtime and bonuses excluded.

  The main reason given for excluding overtime was that in situations where non-resident parents had been assessed using income levels that included irregular overtime, they were paying maintenance based on unrepresentative income. Nearly a quarter of responses mentioned this.

  Nineteen responses suggested that overtime/bonus payments should be included. These were equally split between non-resident parent's and parent with care's point of view. Of these, half said overtime only should be included and half overtime and bonuses. The main reason given for including these payments was that some non-resident parents worked significant periods of overtime or gained bonuses outside the period of assessment, sometimes with the collusion of employers. These included salesmen whose income consisted of large amounts of commission.

  Twenty responses also suggested that only guaranteed or regular overtime and bonuses which, for example averaged more than 50 per cent of income, should be included as income.

Self-employed

  The Green Paper said:

"For the self-employed, we are considering a system where child support is assessed on the basis of the most recent year's taxable profit, as determined by the Inland Revenue. This information will be easy for the non-resident parent to provide . . . In some cases, this could substantially reduce the delay in collecting maintenance." [Chapter 5, paragraph 19]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Seventy-two responses were concerned with the income of self-employed non-resident parents. Twenty four responses (over half of them neutral) mentioned closer links with the Inland Revenue. Ten were specifically in favour of the proposal to base a child support assessment on the most recent year's taxable profit, as determined by the Inland Revenue, whilst nine of these were in favour of closer links in general and five against.

  Twenty-three responses, 18 written from the parent with care's point of view, complained that self-employed non-resident parents deliberately misled the CSA about the true level of their income and their lifestyle. Others complained that accountants helped the self-employed to avoid declaring their true income or that non-resident parents became self-employed to avoid or delay paying maintenance. Some suggested that the CSA should have greater powers to investigate the income of the self-employed.

  Twenty-nine responses criticised the way that the CSA dealt with the self-employed currently. For example, by not identifying cases where the non-resident parent was hiding his true financial circumstances and a perceived imbalance between how the CSA dealt with the employed and the self-employed. 13 responses were written from the point of view of the self-employed and made general comments about the CSA not fully allowing for, or understanding the practices of, the self-employed.

SHARED CASE: SHARING SUPPORT

  The Green Paper said:

"We are anxious that fathers' caring responsibilities to their children do not go unrecognised.It . . . seems sensible to encourage the sharing of care between both parents by increasing the allowance made in the maintenance assessment for time spent with the non-resident parent. At present, the non-resident parent's maintenance is reduced for every night of care the child spends with him, subject to a minimum of 104 nights per year. We propose reducing this minimum to 52 nights per year. We recognise that this will not reflect the daytime care given by many parents—but trying to assess daytime care would be an extremely complex process. It would also invite legitimate questions about what should be treated as care and what is merely contact. We welcome views of this." [Chapter 5, paragraphs 22 and 23]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  This issue was raised in 207 responses—13 per cent of the full response. The vast majority of the comments were written from a non-resident parent's point of view. Fifty-five responses—all but one written from either a non-resident parent's or neutral point of view—agreed that the threshold for shared care should be reduced to 52 nights particularly because this would include many non-resident parents who cared for their children only at weekends and the current threshold discriminated against non-resident parents who lived a long way from their children.

  Eleven respondents did not think that the threshold should be lowered—mainly because it would result in less maintenance for parents with care.

  Twenty-three responses suggested there should be some recognition of day care. Respondents felt that not recognising day care discriminated against non-resident parents who worked night shifts and those who cared for their children during the day whilst the parent with care worked. Some respondents suggested that in certain circumstances, tribunals could decide on the nature of care provided and allow certain periods of day care to be counted as shared care.

  Forty-eight responses criticised the current system of shared care and the proposals. Twenty four particularly criticised the system when care was more or less equally shared, mainly because it was unfair to award maintenance on the basis of who held the child benefit book. Twelve respondents wanted the non-resident parent's liability reduced by 2/7ths for every night of care. Others suggested that both parents should be assessed and child maintenance apportioned on the basis of the extent of shared care.

  Some non-resident parents thought parents with care used the current system to improve their financial situation whilst a few organisations suggested that non-resident parents would use the new proposals to lower the amount of maintenance they would have to pay.

SPECIAL EXPENSES

  The Green Paper said:

"We expect that the new formula will result in a fair calculation of maintenance for most parents . . .However, some parents have special expenses . . . For these people, paying a set percentage of their income in maintenance might not be reasonable. We therefore propose . . . to set a different level of maintenance in certain, exceptional, circumstances . . . We will welcome views on the items for which allowance should be made." [Chapter 5, paragraphs 27 to 29]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Eighty-five responses commented on the scope of the special expenses scheme—over 95 per cent written either from a non-resident parent's or a neutral point of view.

  Eleven responses thought special expenses should be strictly limited mainly to avoid delays whilst 18 responses suggested the scope of the scheme should be widened and that tribunals should have greater discretion.

  Thirty-three respondents (none written from a parent with care's point of view) thought expenses relating to maintaining contact with children should be allowed. Other suggestions of costs which could be included were those associated with obtaining access, the care of disabled children, step children and education. Seventeen responses thought property and capital settlements and agreements where the non-resident parent paid the parent with care's housing costs should be taken into account. Others mentioned travel to work costs, marital debts, the cost of caring for elderly or disabled relatives, some housing costs and car loans.

EFFECT OF THE NEW RATES ON LEVELS OF MAINTENANCE

  The Green Paper said:

"The collection of child support needs to be straightforward and efficient . . . We plan to offer non-resident parents two basic ways to pay:

—  direct to the parent with care; or

—  to the Child Support Agency (CSA), via direct debit, standing order or payment direct from their wages.

However, if voluntary arrangements fail, or non-resident parents do not co-operate, then child support will be deducted direct from their wage packet, with or without their consent." [Chapter 6, paragraphs 1 to 4]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  There were a total of 257 responses about various aspects of the collection and enforcement of child support maintenance.

  Twenty-two respondents raised the subject of direct payment of maintenance between parents—12 were specifically in favour mainly because this option would enable a non-resident parent to maintain a sense of involvement with his child. However, a few neutral responses were opposed to this because it would give the non-resident parent too much power over the parent with care and such payments were likely to be irregular.

  There were 37 responses about direct debit and standing orders. Seventeen respondents were specifically in favour of one of these methods and a few non-resident parents thought that there should be a discount for those who used direct debit.

  Sixty responses raised issues concerning deductions from earnings orders (DEOs)—over half of which were written from the non-resident parent's point of view. Thirteen respondents expressed general approval of DEOs and eight said they should be more firmly enforced. Six respondents thought that all maintenance should be collected by DEO to remove the stigma of this method of payment and to ensure more efficient collection of maintenance.

  Sixteen responses expressed general disapproval of DEOs and some complained that there was no legal redress once a DEO had been imposed and that they could cause hardship, particularly to second families.

  Suggestions for improving collection and enforcement included: using existing powers more efficiently and speedily, asking non-resident parents to complete a direct debit mandate at the same time as the initial forms were completed, using court action much earlier in the enforcement process and deducting maintenance from the non-resident parent's future pension.

THE COURTS

  The Green Paper said:

"Some of the more vocal critics of the current scheme have suggested a return to the previous system, where maintenance was awarded by the Courts. But the proposed system involves the application of a simple formula: it is not appropriate for the Courts to be involved in this simple approach. Their role is to adjudicate on disputes, not to `rubber stamp' an administrative calculation. In any event we see no reason to suppose that a Court-based system could avoid the problems that were apparent before 1993." [Chapter 6 paragraph 10]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Ninety responses (6 per cent of the full response) thought that the courts could be involved in the delivery of child support—nearly three-quarters written from the non-resident parent's point of view. A small number of replies raised other issues such as, the previous liable relatives system, the ability of courts to deal with all aspects of family breakdown and child-related issues and to enforce orders successfully. A few respondents were specifically against any return to the courts.

  Eighty responses referred to court orders and clean break settlements. 33 respondents, all written from a non-resident parent's point of view, stated that these settlements should be left alone by the CSA and a further 24 responses, also written from a non-resident parent's point of view, stated that such agreements should count in some way towards the CSA maintenance assessment. A few responses simply expressed concern over what would happen under the new scheme to court orders and clean break settlements.

  The Green Paper said:

"We propose a three-stage decision-making process:. . ." [Chapter 7, paragraph 1]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Forty-six responses expressed an opinion on the 3 stage decision making process—36 were in favour and 10 were against.

STAGE ONE—THE GATEWAY TO THE CHILD MAINTENANCE SERVICE

  The Green Paper said:

"Stage One of the decision-making process is the gateway to the child maintenance service. . . . At Stage One, we need to gather information from the parent with care and the non-resident parent so we can make their child support assessment, such as details of the children and earnings." [Chapter 7, paragraph 3]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  There were 29 responses—two thirds written from the non-resident parent's point of view—in support of the proposal to increase the use of the telephone to make the initial assessment mainly because it would be quicker. There were some suggestions that more lines should be available and that calls should be free.

  Twenty-seven respondents were against an increase in the use of the telephone—again two thirds written from the non-resident parent's point of view. Specific reasons related to the inefficiencies in the current system although many also said using the telephone to fix maintenance assessments would be unsatisfactory without verification of the assessments. Other reasons included concerns over privacy and problems for non-resident parents who did not have a telephone.

STAGE TWO—DISCUSSION AND CORRECTING ERRORS

  The Green Paper said:

"Most parents should be able to see that their assessment is fair at Stage One. However, there will be some cases where parents have concerns about the amount. . . .Stage Two of the decision-making process is about addressing these concerns. If parents have a query about their assessment, they will be able to telephone their caseworker and ask for an interview. This interview might be over the telephone, or face-to-face. . . . If parents would prefer to discus their case with a different staff member, that can be arranged. The majority of straightforward errors will be identified and corrected at this interview. . . . Whenever an assessment is changed, we will send details to both parents." [Chapter 7, paragraphs 11 to 14]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  There were 64 responses in favour of the proposal for a discussion and review stage—over half of which were written from the non-resident parent's parent point of view—and only two against. Points made included the need for adequate resources to cope with the increased number of interviews and for interviewers to be local, well-trained, well-informed and to have the power to alter maintenance assessments.

STAGE THREE—THE TRIBUNAL STAGE

  The Green Paper said:

"If negotiation with a child support caseworker has not resolved parents' concerns, or if they have certain special expenses which should be taken into account in the assessment, they can opt to go forward to Stage Three—an independent tribunal." [Chapter 7, paragraph 17]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Twenty-three responses agreed with the proposal for a tribunal stage for independent reconsideration of liability whilst 21 disagreed. These were all written from the non-resident parent's or a neutral point of view. Seven responses said that the criteria for a tribunal to consider a case should not be limited.

  Other points made were that appeals should be heard as quickly as possible; that tribunals should have greater flexibility to choose periods of assessments, and powers to order disclosure of evidence, enforce witness summons and require the appointment of an inspector. Some also thought there should be a further opportunity, beyond tribunals, to appeal against decisions and that The Appeals Service might be overwhelmed by the volume of appeals. Three organisations thought the courts could perform the role of tribunals.

TREATMENT OF EXISTING CASES

  The Green Paper said:

"By April 2001 the Child Support Agency (CSA) is expected to have over one million active cases on its books. If we introduce a new method of assessing child support, we need to think very carefully about how we treat these existing cases. One option is to keep existing cases in the current scheme, and to carry on working out child support with the current formula . . . However, this is not practical. It would mean running the current scheme alongside the new scheme for up to 19 years. . . . If we re-assess existing cases, we could be accused of tearing up satisfactory arrangements retrospectively. . . . We are simply suggesting a change in liability within existing arrangements . . . Annex Two outlines two possible solutions:

—  Option A—Transfer existing cases to the new scheme when their first regular review is due.

—  Option B—Move all of them onto the new scheme from a common date and notify parents of the new amount in advance.

. . .We welcome your views on each option . . ." [Chapter 8, paragraphs 4 to 10]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  One-hundred and twenty-three responses (8 per cent of the total response) commented about transferring existing cases onto the new scheme—95 per cent written from either a non-resident parent's or neutral point of view. Over three-quarters thought existing cases should move to the new scheme from a common date, mainly because the alternative was unfair to parents. It was also suggested that transferring cases from the date of a periodic review could lead to some parents trigering changes of circumstances and appeals in an attempt to benefit from the new scheme at an earlier date. A few respondents stated that clients should be given sufficient notice of the set date to allow them to budget.

  Twenty-six respondents thought that transfer should be based on the date of a periodic review mainly to give clients time to budget and prepare for the effects of the new scheme. Others suggested that a set date would place overwhelming demands on the CSA system.

  Other individual suggestions included introducing the maintenance disregard before other elements of the new scheme, reviewing all cases within one year, giving priority to those who wanted to transfer earlier and transferring cases over a period of one year but in four phases.

Phasing

  The Green Paper said:

"Phasing

Re-assessing existing cases means the amount of child support will sometimes change. So another important consideration is whether to give parents protection from this increased, or reduced, liability. Currently, . . , maintenance is not a fixed and unchanging amount. . . . It would be unfair to both parents to simply freeze their child support at its current level. But it might be appropriate to phase in payment of the new amount, both for increases and decreases. . . . We would like your views on ways of moving families onto the new assessment quickly, but phasing in (perhaps by £5 per week each year) the cash sum to be paid." [Chapter 8, paragraphs 11 to 14]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Thirty-six responses thought an increase in maintenance should be phased and 26 disagreed. 37 responses thought a reduction in maintenance should be phased whilst 26 disagreed. The vast majority (93 per cent) of these responses were written either from a non-resident parent's or neutral point of view.

  The main reason suggested for not phasing-in the new scheme was that it would be unfair because the original maintenance assessment had not been phased and neither were changes of circumstances. Others thought that phasing would be complex.

  Those in favour of phasing suggested there should be a time limit on the period of phasing, that it should concentrate on cases involving the poorest clients or where there was significant hardship.

  The Green Paper said:

"Simplifying the assessment process is an important step towards creating a better child support service. But it will not solve all the problems of the CSA. . . . We recognise that there is anurgent need to improve the CSA's service to its clients. We will help to meet this need by introducing several significant changes between now and 2001. These improvements will pave the way for radical change." [Chapter 9, paragraphs 1 and 2]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  There were 193 responses about interim measures which could be implemented in advance of the new scheme—over 86 per cent written from a non-resident parent's or a neutral point of view. Many of these responses echoed those made about the three stage decision making process.

REMOVE BACKLOGS

  The Green Paper said:

"The most immediate challenge facing the CSA is to get completely up to date. . . . The CSA has already established a strong momentum in clearing these backlogs and is on course for being completely up to date by April 1999." [Chapter 9, Paragraph 4]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  The issue of backlogs in the CSA was raised in 19 responses. There was general approval for the aim to complete work on the backlogs by April 1999 and in particular before the start of the new scheme. A few responses suggested that arrears arising as a result of the CSA's backlogs should be cancelled.

  There was some concern that backlogs would remain after April 1999 and would have an impact on the CSA's work after that date.

OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

  The Green Paper said:

". . . . the CSA could provide a better service by organising its staff differently, in response to client requirements. . . . the local offices will deal primarily with visits, interviews and court presentations. They will provide a much more responsive service for clients who want to talk to CSA staff face-to-face. Regional CSA Centres will handle mainstream assessment work, as well as accounts and enforcement work." [Chapter 9, paragraph 5]

Written Response During the Consultation Period

  There were 63 responses about the principle of a more localised service and the overwhelming majority were in favour of face-to-face interviews in local offices. (See also comments under Chapter 4.)

`POSITIVE CUSTOMER CONTACT'

  The Green Paper said:

". . . the CSA is developing a telephone-based approach through its `Positive Customer Contact' initiative. . . . The CSA will also extend its working hours to offer a more convenient and accessible service, . . . We recognise that many of the CSA's letters are much too technical and difficult for clients to understand. Over the next two years, the CSA will be changing all of them." [Chapter 9, paragraphs 7 to 9]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  There were 26 responses about increasing the amount of work carried out by telephone. Suggestions included a freephone number and the direct number for the caseworker being included on the CSA's letters.

  Sixteen responses commented on the proposal to extend working hours—all were in favour although it was recognised that there must be sufficient resources to make the extended hours worthwhile and that any rota system would mean that it might not always be possible to speak to the same caseworker.

  Thirty-eight respondents said that the quality of the CSA's written communication should be improved and that current communications were difficult to understand.

SUPPORTING LONE PARENTS

  The Green Paper said:

"The Benefits Agency now helps lone parents complete a Maintenance Application Form at the visit when they first claim benefit. Benefits Agency involvement will soon extend to taking statements where the lone parent claims she does not want to co-operate because of risk of harm or undue distress (also known as `good cause')..  .  . We are exploring the scope for the Benefits Agency to deal with all issues of child support where both parents are receiving benefit." [Chapter 9, paragraphs 11 and 12]

Written Responses During the Consultation Period

  Thirty-one responses commented on the Benefits Agency/Child Support Agency closer working initiative. Eleven were specifically in favour of the initiative and thought that it would reduce duplication of work between the BA and CSA. There were a few responses specifically against the initiative mainly because it was felt that BA staff might not be as sensitive as CSA staff to the concerns of parents with care claiming "good cause".