The government is proposing to charge single parents who seek help from the CSA (Child Support Agency) to obtain maintenance for their children from the other parent.
On 1 February, the House of Commons voted to overturn a House of Lords’ amendment to the Welfare Reform Bill which was intended to prevent single parents being charged for child maintenance services, where they have no alternative but to use the statutory system to get financial support from the other parent. This is despite the fact that the amendment was overwhelmingly supported by the House of Lords, with 270 votes in favour of the amendment and just 128 against, inflicting the biggest defeat on the government since the election.
During the debate, DWP Minister, Maria Miller, announced that the government would set the upfront application fee, which is payable by parents with care who seek the CSA’s help to obtain child maintenance, at £20 for all applicants. Originally, the government was proposing that the fee be £100, or £50 for those on benefits. This reduction is small comfort to those parents left with no option but to use the CSA, however, as they will still lose up to 12% of all payments collected by the CSA, and which are of course supposed to be for the benefit of their children
Kim Fellowes, who chairs the Child Support Committee of the family lawyers’ group, Resolution, said,
“There will be no incentive for a difficult non-resident parent to make a fair agreement – or any agreement at all – if they know their former partner cannot afford the CSA fees. For many single parents, the costs involved represent a significant sum of money, which means, coupled with the 7-12% collection fee, there is a real risk that they will lose what they are entitled to.
The CSA was designed to ensure non-resident parents were made to face up to their responsibilities; at the moment, there is a real chance that the government, despite its rhetoric, will let them off the hook.”
But Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, told the Andrew Marr show that the current system led to parents being "almost forced to be at each other's throats," and argued that the charges would lead to disputes over child maintenance being settled out of courts more often.
"If you have a relatively small charge, what happens is that people will think about it," said Duncan Smith, insisting that the proposals would be, "better for the children."
Whilst most other amendments to the Bill were passed by relatively small margins in the Lords, the CSA amendment to do away with the charges was overwhelmingly passed. Immediately after those votes, however, senior ministers in the Commons used a procedural committee to declare the Lords’ amendments invalid, relying on the somewhat archaic convention of “financial privilege”, which states that the Lords may not rule on financial matters.
Parliamentary convention has long stated that the Lords do not deliberate on ‘money’ Bills, such as the Budget, but such legislation is never introduced to the Lords in the first place.
What the government is doing here is declaring that the Welfare Reform Bill has financial implications which render the Lords exempt at this critical stage in proceedings. The most obvious question is why ministers have taken this view now, rather than months ago, at the first stages of the Bill.
It is inexplicable that the government should introduce a Bill to Parliament with the intention of it being considered by both Houses, only for it to declare the Bill beyond the auspices of the Lords at this relatively late stage.
Whether the Lords behind the key amendments to the Bill will be able to mount a cohesive defence against this is presently unclear, but it seems that the whole process could end up in a judicial review.
It is an issue of some magnitude; if the break with precedent is deemed to be legitimate, it could have implications for other major government bills going through the Lords, including the legal aid and NHS reform Bills, both of which are highly controversial.
We therefore eagerly await the Lords’ response to the government's declaration of financial privilege.
