| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. I know that I kept him waiting for some time, but his remarks are of genuine interest to me, and to other Members.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although it is important for parents to honour their obligations, it is vital in the first instance to establish beyond doubt who is the parent? Does he accept that my constituent, who insists that he is not the parent of the child concerned and who faces a heavy monthly bill that he cannot afford to meet, has reason to be aggrieved about the fact that only after many months of protest and involvement by his Member of Parliament has he been able to secure a DNA test allowing him either to prove that he is right and that he is not the father, or to be shown that he is wrong and that he is?
Mr. Webb:
Certainly, proving parenthood needs to be dealt with swiftly. If a father denies parenthood and a DNA test proves that he is the father, he should have to bear the costs of that test, but, in either case, the matter has to be resolved quickly.
On the CSA, there is much that is welcome. In my maiden speech in the House, I called for a child maintenance disregard--yet another example of an aspect of my maiden speech that has become law, so I am heartened by that--but my underlying concern is: if the reform fails, where can we go from there? Can we tweak the formula again? My concern is that, essentially, it is our last chance. The hon. Members for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made thoughtful and informed contributions on the matter and the reform has welcome aspects, but my concern is that there will be too much rough justice.
I give one final example. I understand that the formula is to give exceptions; it will not be just income. It is a Government myth that three bits of information will be required. Dozens of bits of information will be required; we all know it. I bet the House that the form will not be a one-side sheet of paper. Something tells me that there will be pages of it, notwithstanding the claims of simplicity.
I read that one exception in the formula arises where a debt has been incurred in the interests of the child. Take, for example, the case of a couple who are happily married and not anticipating divorce. The husband takes out a car loan after he is offered a job. It requires him to drive, so he takes out the loan in good faith.
The couple then divorce. The husband has the onus of the loan. If he does not make the payments, he will lose his job and cannot pay any maintenance. I ask a genuine question of clarification. Will that count as expenditure in the interests of the child? If so, that is a welcome exception in the formula. If not, is that not a reasonable prior claim on his income before the maintenance formula kicks in?
That is just one case. I suspect that there will be many. A crude, simple formula may not take account of circumstances, may create injustices and may not help children to get maintenance.
Mr. Dismore:
As I understand the hon. Gentleman's position, he is saying that the CSA should be abolished, yet he is not saying what he would put in its place. What is his view about that?
Mr. Webb:
I would be more than happy to set out in some detail what we would put in its place. In brief, the Liberal Democrats have taken the view that the previous
We believe that a new court-based system that takes account of such matters, within parameters and guidelines--there have to be guidelines--and that is enforced effectively is a better way forward. I could go on at some length, but it is not appropriate.
Mr. Dismore:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Webb:
No. It is not appropriate to go on any further on that point.
My initial reaction to benefit sanctions for people who do not adhere to community service orders was that it was gesture politics. It was talking tough on something that would not save the taxpayer significant amounts of money. It will almost certainly be counter-productive, but it might win a good tabloid headline.
That was my ill-educated view on the issue, but the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders has said that the measure
My next point straddles the Departments of Trade and Industry and of Social Security, and has already been mentioned once or twice. It is about the Post Office network's position in view of the decision to start withdrawing over-the-counter benefit payments in 2003. I met several sub-post masters and mistresses last night. Despite the Secretary of State's assurances, they are far from reassured about the prospects for their businesses in the coming year. I am glad that the Secretary of State is present to respond to the debate and I hope that he will tackle their genuine anxieties.
The Benefits Agency has given assurances that there will be no further push towards automated credit transfer before 2003 and that it will not try to force people to start a bank account. However, last month, the Benefits Agency wrote to people whose child benefit is paid weekly to encourage them to have it paid monthly. That would cut three quarters of the handling charges from the Post Office. The Benefits Agency included a form for bank details to enable benefit to be paid through the bank. Post masters reported to me that people had come to post offices and said, "I've filled in that form so I won't be getting my benefit from you." The post masters asked why the customers had filled in the forms and they replied, "Because we had to." The letter gave people the impression that they had to change to bank payment. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he knows about the letter, that it has been withdrawn and that there will be no further moves to bank transfer before 2003?
What will happen in respect of post offices in 2003? It has been suggested that benefit recipients will have their money paid into a bank account. Therefore, we must assume that clearing banks will accept accounts for people who have small amounts of money. Many of those people will take money in one day and take it all out the next. In other words, they are unremunerative customers.
Last night, it was suggested to me that customers would lose out if banks started charging heavily for withdrawals. I hope that the Secretary of State can assure us that benefit recipients who transfer to a bank, open a new account and have minimal cash balances will not have to pay bank charges out of their modest incomes. What sort of fees will post offices, especially rural sub-post offices, receive for handling those transactions? They currently receive a predictable stream of fees from the Benefits Agency. Will the Secretary of State assure us that banks will be willing to pay them large sums for handling rather unprofitable accounts?
"makes no sense as a way of tackling crime. Plunging offenders further into poverty"--
which is what is being proposed--
"must increase the temptation to commit theft, burglary or street robbery, so damaging, not improving community safety."
There are similar quotes from the National Association of Probation Officers and--from the horse's mouth, if you like--from someone on the new deal. When asked on a recent BBC radio "File on Four" programme what would happen if his benefit were stopped, he said that he would do
"what everybody else does, most probably go out and rob or something".
If people who have already committed offences, some, no doubt, of theft and other means of obtaining money falsely, are suddenly faced with being £40 or £50 short, the chances that the measure will be in the interests of public order and of the victims seem impossible. It is in the interests only of talking tough, not of being effective. I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on that and not introduce such an ill-conceived measure.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |