18/04/2017

:00:23. > :00:29.We start with the debate on the Child Maintenance Service. It's good

:00:30. > :00:36.to see there are so much media interest today in this at

:00:37. > :00:38.Westminster. Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your

:00:39. > :00:43.chairmanship. I'll also want to thank the committee for giving us

:00:44. > :00:53.here today the opportunity to discuss this extremely important

:00:54. > :00:56.affecting families across the UK. My colleagues have to cut short their

:00:57. > :00:59.Easter weekend to attend today however I've believe the fact they

:01:00. > :01:03.are present highlights the importance of this debate. Many

:01:04. > :01:08.constituents have approached my office regarding issues with the

:01:09. > :01:12.Child Maintenance Service. From their experiences and mine, it is an

:01:13. > :01:17.extremely frustrating and inefficient service to deal with.

:01:18. > :01:20.When it was responsible for something as important as financial

:01:21. > :01:25.support for children and quite often single-parent families, it must

:01:26. > :01:31.execute its duties properly fulfil it must get it right and this isn't

:01:32. > :01:34.happening. The child maintenance service is under resourced, unfit

:01:35. > :01:40.for purpose and failing families across the UK. It has disregarded

:01:41. > :01:44.historical maintenance arrears, allowing nonresident parents to

:01:45. > :01:51.renege on their responsibilities by failing to collect current

:01:52. > :01:54.maintenance and it imposes a tax on parents who desperately require its

:01:55. > :01:58.services. And it fails to provide a service of a decent standard that

:01:59. > :02:04.should be expected of any Government agency. When I was writing this

:02:05. > :02:08.speech, despite the length of time I get to speak, I wasn't thinking

:02:09. > :02:13.about what issues to speak about. I was thinking about what things I

:02:14. > :02:18.would have to leave out. As the maintenance system was so rife with

:02:19. > :02:20.issues. The Child Maintenance Service needs a radical overhaul to

:02:21. > :02:26.make sure parents and their children can get the support, access to the

:02:27. > :02:34.support they are entitled to. This support is not optional. Yes, I will

:02:35. > :02:39.give way. This debate is getting attention in lots of areas at the

:02:40. > :02:44.moment. I suppose a bit she may want to leave out is those who have

:02:45. > :02:48.failed to reach an agreement. The Government will say family -based

:02:49. > :02:52.assessment have increased, but will she go into the detail as to whether

:02:53. > :02:59.that does show a success or not this current system? I'm not going to

:03:00. > :03:04.concentrate on that because that's not exactly family -based

:03:05. > :03:07.arrangements. The report, it doesn't happen in every case, and those who

:03:08. > :03:16.are out with that scheme I'm going to support and talk about this

:03:17. > :03:21.morning. This support the Child Maintenance Service gives is not

:03:22. > :03:24.optional, if the legal right of children and the Child Maintenance

:03:25. > :03:28.Service is failing to secure children and their parents with

:03:29. > :03:38.care. Their rights or it is taxing them. To gain access to what is

:03:39. > :03:44.theirs. Maintenance payments have had, a historic problem with

:03:45. > :03:48.underpayment, people not paying arrears. To date, the outstanding

:03:49. > :03:57.arrears for child maintenance stands at an astonishing ?4 billion. This

:03:58. > :04:00.figure alone shows the extent to which the child support agency and

:04:01. > :04:03.the child maintenance service are failing people. I should also have

:04:04. > :04:08.added my thanks to gingerbread, because I am drawing heavily on

:04:09. > :04:14.their recent report. It is likely to be the case that this does not

:04:15. > :04:17.actually represent the full picture, as paying parents and a direct paid

:04:18. > :04:21.are assumed to have paid their maintenance in full unless Child

:04:22. > :04:29.Maintenance Service is told otherwise. During the transfer

:04:30. > :04:33.process from CSA to CMS, according to gingerbread, who have been doing

:04:34. > :04:35.fantastic work to support families, many parents have been pressured

:04:36. > :04:38.into not transferring their into not transferring their

:04:39. > :04:46.historical arrears over to the new claim. The DWP calls this a fresh

:04:47. > :04:51.start, however, no equivalent letter is sent to paying parents to

:04:52. > :04:56.encourage them to pay off their arrears. In 2013, the UK Government

:04:57. > :05:00.issued preparing for the future, tackling the past, in which they

:05:01. > :05:04.outlined their strategy, disregarding past debts, and instead

:05:05. > :05:09.focusing on the payment of current maintenance. In line with this

:05:10. > :05:18.strategy, between December 2015 and March 2016, debt collections per

:05:19. > :05:26.case of dropped from ?35 down to ?22. The DWP is calculated as little

:05:27. > :05:29.as 12% of CSA debt on both the CSA and CMS systems will actually be

:05:30. > :05:35.collected. Current arrangements allowing parents to renege on their

:05:36. > :05:38.responsibilities. Even though these debts were accrued in the past,

:05:39. > :05:44.these parents should still be held responsible now. Collecting

:05:45. > :05:51.historical arrears should not mean a trade-off should be made with

:05:52. > :05:58.current arrears, both are a parody. -- priority. I agree with very much

:05:59. > :06:05.what you says. Constituent approached me in September 1999, the

:06:06. > :06:08.father of whose child has steadfastly refused to contribute

:06:09. > :06:12.anything, he spent a great deal on lawyers in the intervening almost 20

:06:13. > :06:21.years, paying maintenance, and today he owes ?55,000, of which 15,000 is

:06:22. > :06:24.owed to the parent of my constituent. Does she agree with

:06:25. > :06:30.made it absolutely vital that money is collected and the parent is

:06:31. > :06:33.receiving what is owed to them? He makes an absolutely valid point.

:06:34. > :06:41.Yes, this is exactly what I'm trying to argue, we should not not chase

:06:42. > :06:44.arrears full service seems to fly in the face of common sense. It seems

:06:45. > :06:49.to fly in the face of natural justice. Members of the public and

:06:50. > :06:54.indeed members of this House may not be aware that during the switch from

:06:55. > :07:01.CSA to CMS, case history is not transferred. Leading to a loss in a

:07:02. > :07:06.keynote at knowledge which wastes resources and could allow a parent

:07:07. > :07:10.to renege on their payments. Despite waiting years for an effective

:07:11. > :07:16.service, that will practically seek to collect maintenance, these

:07:17. > :07:20.parents are being forgotten with no options for recourse. If debts are

:07:21. > :07:24.uncollectible or unlikely to be collected, parents must be made

:07:25. > :07:29.aware of this. Additionally, if the UK Government is not willing to take

:07:30. > :07:35.the steps to secure children their rights, then the UK Government must

:07:36. > :07:38.compensate receiving parents for their arrears. Although the CMS is

:07:39. > :07:43.focusing on current maintenance, they are also failing in this

:07:44. > :07:48.regard. Most arrears working related under the CSA however since the

:07:49. > :07:52.launch of the CMS in 2012, half of paying parents had not been allowed

:07:53. > :07:57.to accrue arrears. As I've previously said, those in direct

:07:58. > :08:01.pay, assumed to have paid the full maintenance, but when we consider

:08:02. > :08:06.70% of CMS cases come under the direct paid compared to just 33% of

:08:07. > :08:10.CSA cases, the magnitude of the problem and is CMS is likely to be

:08:11. > :08:14.far larger than the number shown. Just because parent agreed to pay

:08:15. > :08:22.does not mean that they will fulfil their obligations. Under the CSA,

:08:23. > :08:27.between January and March 20 and a quarter of paying parents did not

:08:28. > :08:31.pay the full amount due. Of this number, two thirds paid less than

:08:32. > :08:35.half, or nothing at all. Demonstrating that priority is to

:08:36. > :08:40.focus on the payment of current maintenance is not being met. This

:08:41. > :08:43.Government's current strategy is failing. There are stringent

:08:44. > :08:48.criteria at which must be fulfilled before CSE dates will be considered

:08:49. > :08:54.for collection under the Child maintenance service. A parent must

:08:55. > :08:58.open a CMS case, CSA arrears must be received in the last quarter before

:08:59. > :09:03.moving to child maintenance service or the payment must explicitly ask

:09:04. > :09:06.for these arrears to be collected. The Child Maintenance Service

:09:07. > :09:12.process is extremely difficult to understand and is often not

:09:13. > :09:18.communicated properly. For example, DWP figures show 17% of those using

:09:19. > :09:23.direct paid whose payments were stopped, were not aware of payment

:09:24. > :09:28.could be pursued and similarly, 15% didn't even know about the

:09:29. > :09:31.collecting and pay service. Shockingly, recent report from pay

:09:32. > :09:37.plan found over half of single parents didn't even know their child

:09:38. > :09:41.was eligible for support from their absent parent. Communication with

:09:42. > :09:46.parents of services available to them and their rights is lacking.

:09:47. > :09:52.Communication with parents need to be informed. Child Maintenance

:09:53. > :09:55.Service needs, not only to take action to collect historical

:09:56. > :09:59.arrears, but make parents aware of their rights and what CMS can do to

:10:00. > :10:05.assist them. A variation claim, the main tool for parents to ensure

:10:06. > :10:12.ex-partners's proper income is taken into account is kept secret. A cynic

:10:13. > :10:16.in me believes this is intentionally withheld to reduce any action being

:10:17. > :10:20.taken. Taking simple measures such as providing written breakdowns of

:10:21. > :10:24.arrears, how they were accrued, what options are available to people,

:10:25. > :10:26.would go a long way to improve parents' interaction with the

:10:27. > :10:34.service and awareness of their rights. I thank my friend for giving

:10:35. > :10:37.way and congratulate her on securing this very important debate. Is she

:10:38. > :10:43.aware that in the Northern Ireland context, up apparently 40 members of

:10:44. > :10:49.staff who deal with child maintenance are to be laid off and

:10:50. > :10:53.will find themselves, that department will find itself without

:10:54. > :11:01.experienced staff when they should be ensuring that money goes from the

:11:02. > :11:07.absent parent to those children who urgently require it? I thank her for

:11:08. > :11:10.her contribution. She is absolutely correct and indeed, this ties into

:11:11. > :11:18.the held UDP agenda of closing offices. I'm going to come on later

:11:19. > :11:23.to the under resource of this department -- the DWP. Even if

:11:24. > :11:28.parents don't understand what CMS can do to assist them, there is a

:11:29. > :11:31.hesitant from CMS to take enforcement action. This is a major

:11:32. > :11:40.reason why arrears have been allowed to accrue historically. And

:11:41. > :11:46.presently. Does she agree that, effectively, that deprives resident

:11:47. > :11:49.parents their rights because they have no other way of enforcing it,

:11:50. > :11:55.their legal rights to enforce through the courts has been taken

:11:56. > :11:59.away by the Child Maintenance Service and it leaves them powerless

:12:00. > :12:05.to be able to pursue what is their right, which is maintenance due to

:12:06. > :12:07.them for their children. I thank the honourable lady for her intervention

:12:08. > :12:12.and they have to completely agree, when I went to reply to the

:12:13. > :12:18.backbencher business committee for this debate, I was aware even there

:12:19. > :12:22.of the consensus across the House of the lack of action and the failings

:12:23. > :12:30.of the child maintenance service and this has been reinforced by these

:12:31. > :12:34.interventions. Variation claims, for example, place the burden of proof

:12:35. > :12:40.on the parents with care to show that the ex-partners' incomes are

:12:41. > :12:42.represented as. I've had constituents have had private

:12:43. > :12:51.investigators or have become private investigators themselves... One

:12:52. > :12:55.second. ... To prove their ex-partner is lying about their

:12:56. > :13:00.income. This is not their job. It should be the job of CMS. I thank it

:13:01. > :13:03.for giving way and congratulate her on bringing this debate to the

:13:04. > :13:07.House. Does she agree improvements need to be made to further diminish

:13:08. > :13:11.the ways in which former partners can manipulate and use the system as

:13:12. > :13:19.a weapon of abuse and control, as was the case with one of my

:13:20. > :13:25.constituents, who had to prove her ex-partner's financial status. I

:13:26. > :13:29.thank him for his intervention. Yes, this is at the heart of what I'm

:13:30. > :13:33.trying to get across here today. This system is not working and, at

:13:34. > :13:38.the bottom of it all, children are suffering because of it. Both

:13:39. > :13:41.parents have raised their concerns over the difficulty of raising a

:13:42. > :13:46.complaint. The new system makes the first complaint and enquiry rather

:13:47. > :13:51.than a complaint. Parents and staff have to be persistent in escalating

:13:52. > :13:56.the issue to a complaint, to have it properly investigated. I understand

:13:57. > :14:00.that CMS can't utilise the enforcement actions available to

:14:01. > :14:04.them without proper cause, however, I have had numerous constituents

:14:05. > :14:09.through my door who have not received full and proper payments

:14:10. > :14:13.from their ex-partners, despite showing evidence to CMS, there is a

:14:14. > :14:16.severe lack of urgency and instead, parents are required to jump through

:14:17. > :14:21.hoops to get any sort of action taken and to fight their case. This

:14:22. > :14:25.demonstrates a lack of understanding of how important it is for parents

:14:26. > :14:31.with care to receive full and timely payments. It also contributes to a

:14:32. > :14:38.culture of nonpayment which leads to ironically named paying parents to

:14:39. > :14:41.not pay at all. Without sounding too matter, the child maintenance

:14:42. > :14:45.service should strike fear into the hearts of parents, not making their

:14:46. > :14:48.proper contributions, if CMS took their duties more seriously to

:14:49. > :14:54.pursue maintenance, then parents would perhaps not be allowed to make

:14:55. > :14:59.incomplete, late or non-payments. The UK Government has sanctioned

:15:00. > :15:04.benefit claimants, by supposed overpayment and either by to see

:15:05. > :15:09.them take an enthusiastic approach in ensuring paying parents actually

:15:10. > :15:12.pay. A parent must pay the maintenance which represents the

:15:13. > :15:16.income and a major difference between the CSA and CMS is parents

:15:17. > :15:26.cannot claim for a variation on the grounds of a notional income.

:15:27. > :15:33.This has removed a vital option for parents with care to challenge their

:15:34. > :15:37.ex-partner's claims. Furthermore, non-PAYE income such as dividends

:15:38. > :15:42.and rental income is not automatically taken into account

:15:43. > :15:46.when calculating maintenance. Again, I have constituents who know that

:15:47. > :15:50.their ex-partner is earning large sums from rental income, for

:15:51. > :15:54.example, that this is not taken into account, allowing parents to

:15:55. > :15:59.minimise their maintenance payments at the expense of their children. We

:16:00. > :16:03.have to take action against nonpayment and a change in the rules

:16:04. > :16:06.if required to ensure that maintenance calculation is

:16:07. > :16:11.reflecting comes and that wealthier parents with assets in particular

:16:12. > :16:16.support their children. A closer relationship with HMRC would be

:16:17. > :16:20.welcomed, especially regarding data sharing. A bolstering of the

:16:21. > :16:24.financial inclusion unit would also be welcomed. This was in Stewart

:16:25. > :16:29.Boro investigations of those who are self-employed or of complex

:16:30. > :16:34.financial arrangements or they pay the right maintenance. It is not

:16:35. > :16:38.enough to add to parents' arrears but action must be taken to collect

:16:39. > :16:43.it. The child maintenance services at a crisis point will start so long

:16:44. > :16:46.as it continues, we are allowing parents to avoid their

:16:47. > :16:49.responsibilities to their children. It is a common misconception that it

:16:50. > :16:55.is the receiving parent that is losing out if a parent fails to make

:16:56. > :17:00.proper payments, but it is the children who are paying the price.

:17:01. > :17:05.Proper receipts of child maintenance have been shown to lift one in five

:17:06. > :17:08.families out of poverty. If the UK Government doesn't take proper

:17:09. > :17:13.action to secure children their rights, then they will be allowing

:17:14. > :17:16.this to happen. The risk of poverty for children in single-parent

:17:17. > :17:20.households is almost double that for children in a household with two

:17:21. > :17:25.parents. It is therefore a vital source of income for these families.

:17:26. > :17:29.Some single parents are working themselves to exhaustion to provide

:17:30. > :17:34.for their children while nonresident parents and the child maintenance

:17:35. > :17:40.service allows them to. The Minister must publish the new maintenance

:17:41. > :17:44.collection strategy with set targets for collection, a dedicated

:17:45. > :17:47.enforcement team focused on arrears collection and a collection of

:17:48. > :17:53.current maintenance and a greater use of enforcement powers. Mr Bowen,

:17:54. > :17:57.before the process of even coming under the child maintenance system,

:17:58. > :18:04.a parent must pay a ?20 charge and when they come under collect and

:18:05. > :18:07.pay, receiving parents are taxed 4% of their payments. Responses from

:18:08. > :18:11.ministers have revealed that this is to raise money to actually fun to be

:18:12. > :18:14.maintenance service and also encourage parents to make family

:18:15. > :18:18.-based arrangements between each other rather than making an

:18:19. > :18:23.application to CMS as a default option. I was dismayed to find out

:18:24. > :18:27.that when I tabled a question asking what percentage of those who apply

:18:28. > :18:33.to the CMS where parents with care and what presenters were nonresident

:18:34. > :18:38.parents, that these figures are not available. It makes sense to assume

:18:39. > :18:42.that the vast majority of people who make the initial application are

:18:43. > :18:47.parents with CARE. Many of these parents will be applying to CMS out

:18:48. > :18:51.of necessity and will pay the ?20 application fee and be taxed for

:18:52. > :18:57.percent of the maintenance that is collected simply for collecting

:18:58. > :19:03.their right. For those who apply to the CSA, for example, one third had

:19:04. > :19:06.already had a field family -based arrangements. 12 charges may

:19:07. > :19:11.encourage some families to make family -based arrangements, it can

:19:12. > :19:14.also deter people from going into the child maintenance system

:19:15. > :19:17.entirely leaving them entirely without assistance or because. This

:19:18. > :19:22.is particularly true for people on low incomes who are the people who

:19:23. > :19:26.require support. Two fifths of receiving parents on direct Paice

:19:27. > :19:31.said they found the application fee difficult to afford and so too did

:19:32. > :19:35.half of those are very low incomes. A quarter of receiving parents who

:19:36. > :19:40.moved from director pay to collect and pay said they found the 4%

:19:41. > :19:46.collection fee difficult to afford also. Astonishingly, 16% of parents

:19:47. > :19:51.with an FPA said that being able to afford fees was one reason why they

:19:52. > :19:55.did not apply to the CMS instead of supporting these families, charges

:19:56. > :19:59.are taking money out of parents' pockets, food as of children's

:20:00. > :20:05.mounds and food off their backs all through no fault of their own. Offer

:20:06. > :20:08.simply accessing their rights. Pushing parents out of the

:20:09. > :20:15.maintenance system can leave them without any money at all. 29% of

:20:16. > :20:19.former CSA parents with a CARE said that the application fee was a

:20:20. > :20:24.factor for not having an arrangement. The 4% collection

:20:25. > :20:28.charge influence 24% of these same parents. These charges are actively

:20:29. > :20:33.deterring people from seeking any assistance at all when they most

:20:34. > :20:39.need it. There is one group in particular that Colts special

:20:40. > :20:42.attention and sensitivity, that is parents who have been the victims of

:20:43. > :20:47.domestic abuse or violence. For those who applied to CSA, have had

:20:48. > :20:50.experienced violence or abuse at the hands of their ex-partner. This is a

:20:51. > :20:56.substantial group that must be considered with great care. After a

:20:57. > :20:58.year, around one fifth of receiving parents whose director pay

:20:59. > :21:05.arrangements had broken down or had not even started, said that domestic

:21:06. > :21:10.violence was a starter. In addition, 22% of receiving parents said that

:21:11. > :21:15.domestic violence made it difficult to set up a direct pay arrangements.

:21:16. > :21:19.This shows that so many of these parents need maintenance services

:21:20. > :21:24.and they need them to be effective. I appreciate that the Government has

:21:25. > :21:28.removed the ?20 application fee for these parents, however the same

:21:29. > :21:34.understanding and approach must be implemented in relation to the 4%

:21:35. > :21:39.collection charge. These parents cannot be expected to interact in

:21:40. > :21:43.any shape or form with their abusive ex-partners. For most parents, the

:21:44. > :21:48.child maintenance service should not be a default starting point, but for

:21:49. > :21:54.these parents, it absolutely should be. Taking simple steps such as

:21:55. > :22:01.allowing for a non-eyes direct pay could protect these victims. When we

:22:02. > :22:04.consider that many parents on low incomes are deterred by charges,

:22:05. > :22:08.forcing these parents to deal with their ex-partners to save money is a

:22:09. > :22:13.danger to their security and well-being. And, I should add, often

:22:14. > :22:18.to those children involved as well. Some of these parents end up not

:22:19. > :22:22.reporting unpaid maintenance out of fear of reprise attacks or, if they

:22:23. > :22:26.worsen relations. These parents deserve to be treated with the

:22:27. > :22:31.utmost dignity and respect. The Government must therefore make

:22:32. > :22:37.urgent provision for this. Charges can be a barrier for parents and

:22:38. > :22:40.their children. While I believe parents should seek an FPA if

:22:41. > :22:44.possible, we should not be excluding those who have tried and failed.

:22:45. > :22:48.While I appreciate the Government's need to fund this service, they

:22:49. > :22:54.should not be penalising children. In a worst-case scenario, the 4%

:22:55. > :22:57.charge should be added onto the 20% charge that nonresident parents in

:22:58. > :23:01.parrot under collect and pay. They should pay the price for

:23:02. > :23:06.noncompliance, not their children. Especially if it can be proven that

:23:07. > :23:12.an F BA is not working or that the paying parent is not making the

:23:13. > :23:15.contributions that they should be. Gingerbread recommend a means test

:23:16. > :23:23.should also be implemented to ensure that those who need the service is

:23:24. > :23:27.the most should not be deterred by the ?20 application fee. Taxing

:23:28. > :23:32.children and parents, many of which apply to CMS out of necessity due to

:23:33. > :23:36.low incomes or domestic abuse, is not just. They have a legal right to

:23:37. > :23:41.the support and the Government should not be skimming off the top

:23:42. > :23:47.of what can be a vital lifeline. We must therefore see and ends to the

:23:48. > :23:52.4% tax on maintenance. I don't want to portray all paying parents as

:23:53. > :23:56.villains. Many pay their support for their children both inside and

:23:57. > :24:03.outside of the maintenance service. But these CMS service also penalises

:24:04. > :24:09.them. It is an imperfect system for either parent. By implementing a 25%

:24:10. > :24:13.threshold on a changing income on paying parents, this can be from

:24:14. > :24:17.many lower income parents struggling and allow higher income parents to

:24:18. > :24:23.retain more money that could be used for supporting their children. I

:24:24. > :24:27.agree that having this threshold provides stability to payments and

:24:28. > :24:31.ensures that CMS does not incur a large administration costs for

:24:32. > :24:36.changes in income, however, this must be set at a level that will

:24:37. > :24:44.allow a more accurate reflection of parents' income. This two, this 25%

:24:45. > :24:49.rule, must be looked at. CMS sav have also indicated to Gingerbread

:24:50. > :24:53.that there has been a reluctance to move cases from direct pay to

:24:54. > :24:56.collect and pay due to the high 20% charge, therefore staff need to

:24:57. > :25:01.utilise other enforcement measures to ensure proper payment. There must

:25:02. > :25:06.be a review on these charges to encourage staff to move cases to

:25:07. > :25:10.collect and pay if need be and to not be deterred by placing higher

:25:11. > :25:17.charges on the payment of nonresident parents. An issue that

:25:18. > :25:20.both parents will undoubtedly have had major issues with is actually

:25:21. > :25:26.dealing with the child maintenance service. This is one complaint every

:25:27. > :25:31.parents that comes to my office has in common. The main complaint is

:25:32. > :25:35.that they are passed from pillar to post and every time they called the

:25:36. > :25:40.CMS, they are giving a new caseworker who has no previous

:25:41. > :25:43.knowledge of their case, requiring the calling parent to provide

:25:44. > :25:49.lengthy explanations of what is often complex arrangements within a

:25:50. > :25:53.complex system. Staff often provide parents with conflicting information

:25:54. > :26:00.depending on the col handler. One caseworker told a staff member from

:26:01. > :26:02.my office that due to a lack of resources, oral responses were given

:26:03. > :26:07.rather than Britain responses. This often leads to contradictory

:26:08. > :26:11.information being given to parents by different caseworkers. My staff

:26:12. > :26:15.have even said that it is even difficult for MPs' staff to receive

:26:16. > :26:19.a written response from the child maintenance service. In one

:26:20. > :26:23.instance, one of my constituents are crewed thousands of pounds worth of

:26:24. > :26:28.debts. He wasn't notified of this over the phone and was only informed

:26:29. > :26:32.in writing several months down the line. However, when letters are

:26:33. > :26:37.sent, and they still are, they can be misleading. The most ridiculous

:26:38. > :26:40.issue brought to my attention was that a constituents received a

:26:41. > :26:46.letter outlining his maintenance for his three children. You can imagine

:26:47. > :26:51.his surprise or horror, rather, considering he had only ever

:26:52. > :26:54.fathered two children. I have already outlined that receiving

:26:55. > :26:57.parents have a lack of awareness as to what options are available to

:26:58. > :27:04.them to pursue maintenance and staff are reluctant to enforce action.

:27:05. > :27:07.However, parents who are aware have reported to Gingerbread and my

:27:08. > :27:14.office that they feel they have to constantly pursue CMS to pursue

:27:15. > :27:19.their ex-partner. Rather than a game of cat and mouse, it is a case of

:27:20. > :27:24.dog, cat and mouse. When we look at how much is spent in total easier on

:27:25. > :27:31.the collection of child maintenance, this is not surprising. From 2013-14

:27:32. > :27:39.to be forecast projected spending for 2016-17, the total spent on CSA

:27:40. > :27:43.and CMS has decreased by 21%. This reflects what has been heard from

:27:44. > :27:49.staff that the service is underfunded and unable to properly

:27:50. > :27:52.deal with its workload. As a result of per customer service,

:27:53. > :27:58.satisfaction rates among both groups of parents has dropped significantly

:27:59. > :28:02.over the years. Dissatisfied would perhaps be an understatement for how

:28:03. > :28:09.people feel about the child maintenance service. Both parents

:28:10. > :28:11.are suffering from CMS's administrative and operational

:28:12. > :28:16.inefficiency which makes any dealings with them unbearable.

:28:17. > :28:20.Complaints are not taken seriously and communication of rights and

:28:21. > :28:25.actions are almost nonexistent. I welcome the Government's reviews,

:28:26. > :28:32.but CMS is rife with problems which require radical overhauls of how it

:28:33. > :28:36.operates. With ?4 billion of uncollected maintenance and parents

:28:37. > :28:38.currently being allowed to renege on their current liabilities, the child

:28:39. > :28:45.maintenance service is failing parents and children. Yes,

:28:46. > :28:49.implementing arrangements to deter and minimise noncompliance are

:28:50. > :28:53.welcome, so long as they do not deter parents with CARE. But it is

:28:54. > :28:58.inescapable, the best way to secure for children and their legal rights

:28:59. > :29:04.is for the child maintenance service to get in there and to secure it for

:29:05. > :29:08.them. We need to see the Government taking steps to strengthen

:29:09. > :29:11.enforcement teams to actually enforce payments and to forge a

:29:12. > :29:17.closer relationship with HMRC that sees parents' Altschul income

:29:18. > :29:24.accounted for in maintenance calculations. The UK Government has

:29:25. > :29:28.taken an approach to wear for that colza self-reliance while shrinking

:29:29. > :29:31.the welfare state. How better to ensure self-reliance and then to

:29:32. > :29:36.measure parents pay to support their children?

:29:37. > :29:43.They are the responsibility of their parents and they must pay their

:29:44. > :29:49.contributions. The system of charges need urgent reform. It is

:29:50. > :29:56.unacceptable for parents to turn CMS out of nothing other than necessity.

:29:57. > :30:01.And then they are taxed for doing so. Children should not lose out on

:30:02. > :30:10.a single penny, pound or shilling, in my memory, for a parent who does

:30:11. > :30:13.not comply. Abolishing charges and properly collecting maintenance

:30:14. > :30:18.would not only benefit parents by receiving their maintenance in full

:30:19. > :30:22.and on time, it would also be a lifeline to allow low-income

:30:23. > :30:29.families who would be lifted out of poverty. A culture of nonpayment has

:30:30. > :30:33.developed. Parents are failing to make full and timely payments

:30:34. > :30:38.because the Child Maintenance Service is allowing them to. The UK

:30:39. > :30:43.Government is allowing them to. As Gingerbread have said, children

:30:44. > :30:47.living in single-parent families are almost twice at the risk of poverty

:30:48. > :30:54.compared with children of coupled families. Victims and survivors of

:30:55. > :30:58.domestic abuse should be protected by the UK Government, not punished

:30:59. > :31:03.financially for their inability to in gauge with their abusive

:31:04. > :31:08.ex-partner. It is clear that the UK Government remains wedded to

:31:09. > :31:13.austerity. This is in stark contrast to the efforts of the Scottish

:31:14. > :31:18.Government's determination to create a conclusive equal Scotland. I call

:31:19. > :31:24.upon the Minister to follow up on the Gingerbread recommendations. I

:31:25. > :31:28.won't go through them because I've actually done this already in my

:31:29. > :31:32.speech, but they are very easy to access and there are not a lot of

:31:33. > :31:37.them, but they would make a huge difference to parents and

:31:38. > :31:45.especially, please come make a difference to those children. The

:31:46. > :31:52.CMS, what they do is insufficient, inefficient and they are incapable.

:31:53. > :31:58.Our children deserve better. I thank the honourable lady. The question

:31:59. > :32:01.the House has considered the Child Maintenance Service, there are three

:32:02. > :32:09.backbenchers trying to catch my eye and frontbenchers really can't start

:32:10. > :32:16.the windups later than 1230. Thank you. I thank the honourable lady for

:32:17. > :32:22.calling this debate. I should perhaps put on the record that I

:32:23. > :32:30.have used the child support agency for the last 13 years and I've had

:32:31. > :32:35.liking -- I would liken it to bang your head against a brick wall. I

:32:36. > :32:38.was also a case worker supporting parents particular you were the

:32:39. > :32:43.Child support agency, the predecessor to the CMS, with their

:32:44. > :32:47.cases because of my knowledge, my personal knowledge of the

:32:48. > :32:53.procedures. My experience is staff are not properly trained,

:32:54. > :32:57.particularly the CMS staff since the move over to DWP, have no idea what

:32:58. > :33:02.their enforcement powers are. They are extremely reluctant to use them.

:33:03. > :33:08.They fail to use them regularly, and there is a lack of proper

:33:09. > :33:11.compensation when mistakes are made by the CMS. I appreciate that the

:33:12. > :33:20.volumes of complaints to my inbox in relation to CMS' are small, but

:33:21. > :33:24.that's because 3 million cases are still working under the CSA system

:33:25. > :33:30.and have not been transferred over to CMS yet. Which, in my experience,

:33:31. > :33:33.is a blessing in disguise. I know it's not the fault of this minister

:33:34. > :33:41.and I'd feel very sorry for you this minister because she's taken over a

:33:42. > :33:46.system which has had systemic failings for years and the fact that

:33:47. > :33:51.?4 billion worth of arrears are outstanding demonstrates the

:33:52. > :33:55.catastrophic way in which single parents in this country have been

:33:56. > :34:01.let down by a system which was supposed to make collections easier.

:34:02. > :34:07.Now, the honourable lady has outlined very ably some of the key

:34:08. > :34:10.problems in the recommendations of the Gingerbread report and I've back

:34:11. > :34:16.to concentrate specifically in relation to avoidance by the

:34:17. > :34:20.self-employed. As we know from the Chancellor's statement recently, a

:34:21. > :34:26.vast number of people are moving over to self-employment and that is

:34:27. > :34:31.a growing group particular amongst nonresident parents. And it makes

:34:32. > :34:38.the avoidance of child maintenance of that much easier. There are

:34:39. > :34:45.online forums which provide advice to nonresident parents in how to

:34:46. > :34:49.avoid child maintenance payments and, quite frankly, the Government

:34:50. > :34:55.has not stepped up to the plate. It is scandalous that parents, whose

:34:56. > :35:01.legal rights to maintenance for their children, have been taken away

:35:02. > :35:06.and given to the state, are finding the state is unwilling or unable to

:35:07. > :35:12.enforce their rights and, quite frankly, it's not good enough. In my

:35:13. > :35:17.view, it is discriminatory because it largely operates against women.

:35:18. > :35:24.75% of single parents are women. And the Government really has to look at

:35:25. > :35:30.this area again. So I would call for some specific action by the

:35:31. > :35:33.Minister, in particular, I would echo calls for the lifestyle

:35:34. > :35:37.inconsistent with earnings. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest

:35:38. > :35:47.that a parent who may have separated from their partner 10-13- 15 years

:35:48. > :35:51.before but have a detailed knowledge of their financial circumstances

:35:52. > :35:56.and, very often, the only evidence available to be shown to the Child

:35:57. > :36:01.Maintenance Service is lifestyle inconsistent with earnings and I

:36:02. > :36:07.have a constituent, for example, who left his wife and set up with

:36:08. > :36:14.another partner. There was a range Rover, foreign holidays abroad, and

:36:15. > :36:17.?33,000 worth of arrears. Eventually, after a long court case

:36:18. > :36:23.and tribunal hearing, the matter had to go through the tribunal, but the

:36:24. > :36:28.evidence was lifestyle inconsistent with earnings. And it really is

:36:29. > :36:33.vital that that is reinstated. Secondly, the Government needs to

:36:34. > :36:40.look at how tax rules are used to disguise assets. In particular,

:36:41. > :36:43.where someone is self-employed or a director of their own company. And

:36:44. > :36:47.they make a director 's name into that company, that is an asset which

:36:48. > :36:51.is owned by them and it means they can take large amounts of money out

:36:52. > :36:57.of the company but it is not considered to be an asset for the

:36:58. > :37:03.purposes of child maintenance and that is wrong. That allows abuse of

:37:04. > :37:10.the system and, quite frankly, is being used a lot. That information

:37:11. > :37:18.should be available in companies House. It should be available from

:37:19. > :37:21.HMRC. And, really, it needs to the looked at again. The further

:37:22. > :37:27.recommendation is that the Government considers giving women

:37:28. > :37:33.and enforceable right in the courts where there is a threshold of

:37:34. > :37:36.assets. Where that asset threshold is set then that's a matter for the

:37:37. > :37:42.Minister and her team to decide.. I would urge you that, where there are

:37:43. > :37:49.circumstances where there is half ?1 million worth of assets, that case

:37:50. > :37:54.ought to fall outside CMS. They're not taking into account the family

:37:55. > :37:57.home, exempt from consideration as part of the assets of the

:37:58. > :38:06.nonresident parent and it doesn't take much to look through past cases

:38:07. > :38:09.that have been through the tribunal system where their assets of ?7

:38:10. > :38:14.million in the family home, inexpensive sports cars, in

:38:15. > :38:19.high-value items, which simply cannot be taken into account by CMS

:38:20. > :38:24.because they don't generate an income. But it is a very convenient

:38:25. > :38:29.shelter and it allows high net worth individuals to avoid paying for

:38:30. > :38:34.their children. Again, I would say it's rarely important, the women

:38:35. > :38:38.involved in these cases have no other way of enforcing their rights.

:38:39. > :38:45.You have taken the rights away from them in court. Really, they need to

:38:46. > :38:51.be reinstated. Quite frankly, because failing to do so, you've

:38:52. > :38:53.excluded so many assets from consideration and actually you're

:38:54. > :39:01.not reflecting the real ability of those nonresident parents to pay for

:39:02. > :39:09.their children. I referred earlier to staff not knowing their rights.

:39:10. > :39:14.There is a complete unwillingness from the CMS for example, from the

:39:15. > :39:22.land Registry, and they would certainly support: location of HMRC

:39:23. > :39:29.and CMS staff. HMRC should also notify CMS if there is an increase

:39:30. > :39:32.in nonresident parent's claim for tax relief. If they put on a tax

:39:33. > :39:38.return and they are claiming up to the tax-free allowance, in terms of

:39:39. > :39:43.income, that should automatically be notified to CMS and we should have

:39:44. > :39:49.much more effective data-sharing across Government to unable

:39:50. > :39:56.enforcement. -- enable enforcement. I could go on for longer, but I

:39:57. > :40:02.would say that, having been a single mum for eight years, where rifle the

:40:03. > :40:07.system, having been a lawyer, who thought I could understand and work

:40:08. > :40:12.the system and I'm a MP, and still, we cannot get it to work, it is

:40:13. > :40:19.really a scandal and a disgrace that lone parents are being let down so

:40:20. > :40:23.badly by a system that allows nonresident parents to manipulate

:40:24. > :40:28.it. So I'm very grateful for this debate because if we are to be

:40:29. > :40:33.Government that is there for everybody, then we must be

:40:34. > :40:37.Government that supports those who are the least able to enforce their

:40:38. > :40:40.rights and the fact their legal rights of been taken away means the

:40:41. > :40:45.burden and the responsibility on Government is that much greater

:40:46. > :40:52.because they have no other way of doing it. I know that a judge and

:40:53. > :40:57.the court, having practised for 13 years or more as a barrister, I know

:40:58. > :41:03.a judge would look at these things in a very, very different way from

:41:04. > :41:08.Government and, quite frankly, it is time to give the rights back to

:41:09. > :41:14.women to take them through the courts or to make sure staff are

:41:15. > :41:21.properly trained, that they take the action that they need, and that they

:41:22. > :41:24.enforce inappropriately. I know the Minister has ?3.9 million worth of

:41:25. > :41:31.arrears outstanding in her constituency. Mine regrettably is

:41:32. > :41:38.?5.4 million of arrears. I would say to any single parent reading this

:41:39. > :41:42.debate, any single parent who is looking at this debate, please

:41:43. > :41:47.contact your MP. Allow us to try to help make the system work for you.

:41:48. > :41:53.But when CMS does make mistakes it should compensate appropriately. And

:41:54. > :42:00.the compensation regime for CMS has changed since it moved over to the

:42:01. > :42:04.DWP. Now, that is wrong. I suspect that we will be seeing some

:42:05. > :42:11.Parliamentary ombudsman reports in relation to claims against the DWP

:42:12. > :42:15.because it is unacceptable that where mistakes have been made by the

:42:16. > :42:19.department, it is the children not have to pay for it. I would say that

:42:20. > :42:22.there are some simple steps that wouldn't necessarily cost the

:42:23. > :42:28.Government huge amounts of money that could be taken that would help

:42:29. > :42:36.parents enforce their rights. Can I thank the honourable lady for

:42:37. > :42:42.presenting a very, very detailed setting the scene for us. Everyone

:42:43. > :42:50.is aware of the issues because we have them in our offices every day.

:42:51. > :42:54.The system is a system which is supposed to help false and very

:42:55. > :42:59.often we find ourselves in a position where it is seen not to

:43:00. > :43:02.help. A system to ensure parents who do not have full custody of their

:43:03. > :43:05.children are still responsible for part of their care and this is a

:43:06. > :43:09.system which unfortunately is needed as there are those in society who

:43:10. > :43:13.believe leaving a mother entitles you to leave the child and children.

:43:14. > :43:17.And this does not need to happen and indeed should never happen so we

:43:18. > :43:23.have systems in place to try and address these issues which, quite

:43:24. > :43:31.clearly, highlight the shortcomings of the system. To be fair, there are

:43:32. > :43:36.some people who come to me with their issues and consult their

:43:37. > :43:40.problems out. There are occasions when things go right but

:43:41. > :43:46.unfortunately there are more cases when it does not go right so there's

:43:47. > :43:50.a system in place to ensure there is a spread of responsibility. It's not

:43:51. > :43:55.successfully used and the loser is the child. You referred to the

:43:56. > :44:00.position of a child and the children as well every time, the people we

:44:01. > :44:03.see. It's also clear the system is in no way addressing all of the

:44:04. > :44:08.issues that people have and they believe there's a better and more

:44:09. > :44:15.effective way which be found. She referred to the Gingerbread charity.

:44:16. > :44:20.I read that report. The Minister is very thorough in the job she does.

:44:21. > :44:26.They launched the report last June last year and there's millions of

:44:27. > :44:33.pounds owed to children failing to be collected by the Government. He

:44:34. > :44:37.mentioned children again who are the most vulnerable in all of this but

:44:38. > :44:42.surely it is time we take a look at this. It's not the first time

:44:43. > :44:46.Governments have scrapped systems and put new systems in place to make

:44:47. > :44:53.them work. We have to think of a vulnerable in this. He's absolutely

:44:54. > :44:58.right. It's a fun ability of the children and the mother as well. And

:44:59. > :45:04.the odd occasion, the father, depending what the issues are but

:45:05. > :45:05.the children should be the focus of our attention. This debate is

:45:06. > :45:16.focused on that. The report that Gingerbread issued

:45:17. > :45:21.last year said there were debts piling up in a new system with an

:45:22. > :45:25.average of ?666 per family. The huge amount of money and could be a

:45:26. > :45:31.uniform or a lunch might and there must be a way of steam this page and

:45:32. > :45:34.it being addressed. It took almost ?4 billion worth of arrears

:45:35. > :45:38.accumulated over the 23 year life span of the transport agency, which

:45:39. > :45:42.is in the process of being shut down and replaced by a successor, the

:45:43. > :45:48.child maintenance service, which we hope will learn from the mistakes of

:45:49. > :45:52.the CSA and be able to deliver a better system. Again, I look to the

:45:53. > :45:59.Minister to how that better system will be unveiled and how we can

:46:00. > :46:02.ensure that the parents and children are the ones who get the money when

:46:03. > :46:06.they should. Yet the Government estimates that only 12% of this

:46:07. > :46:11.amount is ever likely to be recovered so which ever way you look

:46:12. > :46:13.at it for a positive response, and for guidance in this, we are well

:46:14. > :46:16.aware that the Government has already stated that they will not

:46:17. > :46:21.get all the money so they have all said a line in the sand that they

:46:22. > :46:28.can't do it and I have to say, that is very disappointing. An

:46:29. > :46:36.intervention referred to the staff and we know that's DWP, the

:46:37. > :46:40.initiation and how the system works is devolved, but the rules of CSA

:46:41. > :46:44.and the rules of child maintenance service are decreed and set by

:46:45. > :46:48.Westminster here, so the rules and regulations and laws that are set

:46:49. > :46:52.here and implementation of that, staff are moved about the time. In

:46:53. > :46:56.my years of dealing with child maintenance issues, I can never

:46:57. > :47:02.remember speaking to the same person twice. And more often than not,

:47:03. > :47:05.people fall up and say, they said they would phone me back and they

:47:06. > :47:10.didn't. How many times have I heard that? Can many times have you heard

:47:11. > :47:15.it? It is unbelievable how often it happens. Staff are moved about all

:47:16. > :47:20.the time. There is a father who loses work, become self-employed as

:47:21. > :47:26.I believe it is referred to... I can remember a few of the top of my mind

:47:27. > :47:32.who were in a very comfortable position, were earning big money and

:47:33. > :47:36.his response to his wife and his two children was to say, well, I'm not

:47:37. > :47:40.going to be self employed any more and I'm going to go live with my

:47:41. > :47:44.dad. Right away, he ran away from his responsibility and his

:47:45. > :47:49.maintenance which I believe is wrong. There are those who go on the

:47:50. > :47:53.dole, those who... And I have nothing against taxi drivers, but

:47:54. > :48:01.there are some people who take up a job in a taxi which is all cash in

:48:02. > :48:04.hand and where they can declare what they feel after their expenses to be

:48:05. > :48:09.their figure but we have lots of people like that as well. I think we

:48:10. > :48:15.have to look at this. We also have delays in the system. My goodness

:48:16. > :48:19.me! I have to say, in fairness, in Northern Ireland we have had a

:48:20. > :48:24.direct call now, contacts with the manager of the system who when you

:48:25. > :48:28.contact him seems to initiate a response, but what about all the

:48:29. > :48:31.other people who are not MPs? What about people who are not

:48:32. > :48:35.councillors? What about the mother who is at her wits' and witty

:48:36. > :48:41.doesn't have the money to take care of her children? I expect, and I do

:48:42. > :48:47.expect all members would expect, the same response to those ladies and

:48:48. > :48:51.those parents and those mothers as there is for us. Gingerbread

:48:52. > :48:59.evidence suggests that a decreasing effort has been put in from the

:49:00. > :49:01.Government and meanwhile the new CMS system of incentives and penalties

:49:02. > :49:09.was supposed to prevent arrears arising in the first place. After

:49:10. > :49:12.two and a half years of operation, a lot has accumulated. Almost half of

:49:13. > :49:16.all nonresidents parents and the system have some sort of debt and

:49:17. > :49:22.this will increase as cases are transferred across the old system.

:49:23. > :49:26.Over my period of time, I have seen parents, fathers on all occasions, I

:49:27. > :49:30.have to say, who moved out of the country and got a job elsewhere and

:49:31. > :49:35.again, I wonder how we can trace those people who are nonresidents in

:49:36. > :49:39.the United Kingdom. I echo the cry of the Did you read executive when

:49:40. > :49:44.she said in June, Britain's child maintenance system is contributing

:49:45. > :49:48.to a culture where it is too many parents think it is optional rather

:49:49. > :49:51.than obligatory to pay child maintenance. The amount of arrears

:49:52. > :49:55.is staggering and unacceptable with analysis showing that one in five

:49:56. > :49:57.families are lifted out of poverty by child painters payments. This is

:49:58. > :50:02.vital money that parents and their children cannot do without. The

:50:03. > :50:07.lady, the chief executive, has clearly outlines the issue and where

:50:08. > :50:09.we are and with the Institute for Fiscal Studies cutlet poverty rates

:50:10. > :50:14.for single-parent families will double by 2020, it is going to

:50:15. > :50:17.worse. The child maintenance of children needs to be collected by

:50:18. > :50:21.the Government, so that is where we are looking to the Minister and the

:50:22. > :50:27.Government for, to see how best we can do that. I have to say as well,

:50:28. > :50:32.we also have parents who are separated or divorced who come to a

:50:33. > :50:36.financial arrangement, an agreement done by two people. It is a good

:50:37. > :50:40.system because in Ireland, most people have come arrangement which

:50:41. > :50:48.is equal to what the CSA or the second backwards and, but I have

:50:49. > :50:54.this frustration, I have to say, Mr Bolan, that sometimes the CSA or are

:50:55. > :50:57.now the CMS will pursue the people who are making financial arrangement

:50:58. > :51:00.and pursue them to see if they can get more out of them. They almost

:51:01. > :51:04.look and easy targets and I find that most frustrating. That is a

:51:05. > :51:10.continual issue that I get in my office. Just last week, I had a

:51:11. > :51:18.father in my office who has children from a previous relationship. His

:51:19. > :51:22.ex-is in a better job than he is, much, much better off financially,

:51:23. > :51:25.and he doesn't run away from his obligations to support his children,

:51:26. > :51:30.but there has to be a financial equation done that is fair and

:51:31. > :51:37.realistic and which can enable everyone to do what they have to do.

:51:38. > :51:43.Less than half the eligible families receive child maintenance. An

:51:44. > :51:50.estimated 70% of close CSA cases are expected to have outstanding

:51:51. > :51:55.rains... Arrears. Communication. Whenever a lady. Looking for her CSA

:51:56. > :52:01.payments, I expect that department to phone her back. We have to

:52:02. > :52:05.initiate a system where communication is so important and in

:52:06. > :52:09.the life that we live in this House as an MP and a member of Parliament,

:52:10. > :52:13.communication is so much our bread-and-butter, how we get on with

:52:14. > :52:18.and relate to our constituents and how we can respond to them as well.

:52:19. > :52:20.I finished with this comment because I'm very conscious of the time.

:52:21. > :52:25.There are failures that are clear and these must be addressed, so the

:52:26. > :52:28.rules, regulations, guidelines of Westminster are the ones we have to

:52:29. > :52:32.look at and how we can change them in a way that the system can work

:52:33. > :52:38.better whether it be in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England.

:52:39. > :52:40.I look to the Minister for assurance that these past debts will be

:52:41. > :52:44.actively sought and there will be changes made to prevent this

:52:45. > :52:50.occurring. And that we will do better for the 12%. Before I call

:52:51. > :52:57.the last backbencher, I am going to start the windups now at 1233

:52:58. > :53:02.because this is a backbench business debate and we want to make sure

:53:03. > :53:07.backbenchers habitats to speak. To take part in this very important

:53:08. > :53:10.debate which is a cross-party debate and quite rightly so, because it is

:53:11. > :53:15.a matter which is of cross-party concern. We all have constituents

:53:16. > :53:18.who have come to us dealing with ongoing concerns about child

:53:19. > :53:21.maintenance arrangements. I want to congratulate the member for

:53:22. > :53:27.Motherwell and Wishaw for securing this debate. In many ways, I should

:53:28. > :53:30.echo the speech of my honourable friend whose personal knowledge of

:53:31. > :53:35.this issue and I want to bring to bear my constituents' concerns which

:53:36. > :53:40.in some ways is a dress rehearsal to my bill tomorrow although events may

:53:41. > :53:45.prevent that! Nevertheless, I'm sure everyone will want to wait until we

:53:46. > :53:50.finish this Parliament to be able to submit my bill which does

:53:51. > :53:53.particularly focus squarely on the issue of justice and equity. I want

:53:54. > :54:02.to come to the point of principle here will be can all agree because

:54:03. > :54:05.it is a principle that was quite rightly put up by the Margaret

:54:06. > :54:11.Thatcher who was a creature of that Government. We want to follow it

:54:12. > :54:13.through. It was a question of principle of personal

:54:14. > :54:17.responsibility, recognising that when we have a statutory child

:54:18. > :54:22.maintenance system and we are recognising as a society that all

:54:23. > :54:25.parents have continued responsibility for reasonable

:54:26. > :54:29.contributions towards the upkeep of their children. That is an important

:54:30. > :54:33.principle and the principle is for all children. Whatever system we

:54:34. > :54:37.have in place, whatever statutory arrangement, whatever administrative

:54:38. > :54:42.reasons are given by the Government for convenience, expeditious

:54:43. > :54:46.reasons, whatever reasons that are given, we must not lose sight of the

:54:47. > :54:50.overarching principle and we must ensure that we have that ongoing

:54:51. > :54:54.responsibility to maintain all children. That is all children. It

:54:55. > :54:57.is focused on the children in this. It is not so much only parents, it

:54:58. > :55:01.is on the children's whether the parents are employed or

:55:02. > :55:05.self-employed, there must be an equity and justice for the ongoing

:55:06. > :55:08.maintenance of children. That is what is at the heart of this debate

:55:09. > :55:12.and must continue to be at the heart of the Government. As it is now

:55:13. > :55:19.doing its review. And what we're looking forward to, and I'm not sure

:55:20. > :55:22.what this is going to after today's news, but we are waiting with bated

:55:23. > :55:27.breath for the Government to lay the report that was promised in spring,

:55:28. > :55:31.the report being late to set out what the Government's view is. I

:55:32. > :55:36.know they have an ongoing five-year review but their 30 month review in

:55:37. > :55:40.relation to the current system. Everything has come together. The

:55:41. > :55:43.select committee also has a inquiry, Public account has been waiting to

:55:44. > :55:47.do more work with this. The spotlight is on this I hope she

:55:48. > :55:51.feels the heat. It may be the case that previous ministers who came

:55:52. > :55:54.before Westminster Hall, before parliaments, there were not many

:55:55. > :55:59.debates about the CSA. It was the main issue. That is not the case

:56:00. > :56:05.now, but I would not want the Minister to feel in anyway that

:56:06. > :56:13.there is a lack... That the situation is sorted. Family -based

:56:14. > :56:16.arrangements are up, 70,000 or so in 2014-15 as I know from the select

:56:17. > :56:26.committee or written evidence that there is a view that CMS is

:56:27. > :56:32.performing well. That's seven out of eight are now contributing to their

:56:33. > :56:35.liability to child maintenance, that things are improving. I would not

:56:36. > :56:38.want her to sit the go away and say she can move onto every other area

:56:39. > :56:43.of her brief because this is of real concern because I want to draw

:56:44. > :56:48.attention to my constituent which amplifies the point I make today. We

:56:49. > :56:54.have an issue of arrears, so for example, my constituents went

:56:55. > :56:58.through the old system, CSA, battled hard. When people come to us, they

:56:59. > :57:01.are at the very end of their tether. They only come to us because they

:57:02. > :57:06.have the wherewithal, having been through trial and conflict in their

:57:07. > :57:10.relationship, they are now having to face further trauma and conflict in

:57:11. > :57:14.relation to trying to get what is the just deserts for their children,

:57:15. > :57:17.so they eventually, eventually, eventually come to MPs so we only

:57:18. > :57:22.see a snapshot of the issues that are out there. Many have given up.

:57:23. > :57:26.The Minister may need to reflect on the issue of the ?20 feet and

:57:27. > :57:30.whether some have seen their ?20 as more important to put food on the

:57:31. > :57:32.table rather than trying to seek some maintenance because they have

:57:33. > :57:41.heard bad stories and they may not have the confidence. Although there

:57:42. > :57:44.is good news out there, we have two reflect. If we are going to have

:57:45. > :57:51.this review, there is an impact on the poorest families, we need to

:57:52. > :57:55.reflect on the impact of the fee. For this particular constituent, she

:57:56. > :58:03.went to the whole process, when committed to tribunal, eventually

:58:04. > :58:07.got an assessment which she knew all along. You'll know, effectively be

:58:08. > :58:10.assessments are being made can be out of step with what they know

:58:11. > :58:15.which is the lifestyle of the nonresident parent. This is totally

:58:16. > :58:19.out of step with whether they are contributing anything at. In my

:58:20. > :58:23.constituent's case, there was ?600,000 of assets with the tribunal

:58:24. > :58:29.eventually found which plainly needed to be tapped into for the

:58:30. > :58:32.support of a teenage son and that has now left arrears of ?40,000

:58:33. > :58:41.which she now asks question, where is that going to come from? Will

:58:42. > :58:46.that money support her son? What she has told me about and there has been

:58:47. > :58:50.correspondence with my honourable friend is that the reality is that

:58:51. > :58:54.the variation grounds that she was able to rely upon have now been

:58:55. > :58:58.abolished and what she was able to rely upon to get through to the

:58:59. > :59:01.tribunal and eventually get through that interrogation, she was able to

:59:02. > :59:05.do that because there was a redress that she was able to get to. That

:59:06. > :59:11.has been taken away from her and anyone in her position, that Wright

:59:12. > :59:13.has been taken away as the wit is reliant upon very much, let's say,

:59:14. > :59:18.the cheap and cheerful system that is here through CMS. It does not

:59:19. > :59:23.allow and Atchley stymies a redress through the courts which must be

:59:24. > :59:28.their particularly in high-value cases and complex cases but there is

:59:29. > :59:32.now a large amount of. She is not permitted to seek that redress. The

:59:33. > :59:37.reality is that the abolition of the variation grounds which permitted

:59:38. > :59:39.eight paying parents with no apparent income to be treated as

:59:40. > :59:44.having a notional income has gone and we have to look at whether that

:59:45. > :59:47.should be restored because the issue of jurisdiction is relevant because

:59:48. > :59:52.it is so limited now within the family courts and related to child

:59:53. > :59:59.maintenance. Dealing with consent orders, dealing with the top

:00:00. > :00:03.payments and that is only when there is a high income. Where parents

:00:04. > :00:05.cannot agree, this child maintenance system is the only system to seek

:00:06. > :00:13.redress. We need to see if there is another

:00:14. > :00:18.option of constituents like mine being able to have the redress they

:00:19. > :00:24.need because they are not seeing justice, so when my constituents, in

:00:25. > :00:29.her case, under the current system, the reality is, for the nonresident

:00:30. > :00:40.parent, they could legitimately have a zero maintenance liability. From a

:00:41. > :00:51.?600,000 asset, it would now be madness. It doesn't make sense. It

:00:52. > :00:59.is woefully unfair. We need to look properly. The situation is that any

:01:00. > :01:05.review of the current elation, any variation, can take account of

:01:06. > :01:14.taxable income through data from the HMRC. So that means we are reliant

:01:15. > :01:21.on the date. The Minister says she's working hand in glove to the select

:01:22. > :01:27.committee but there's this independent financial investigation

:01:28. > :01:32.unit, 50 investigators, and she's holding them in on this challenging

:01:33. > :01:36.area of nonresident parents also on the evidence of that, it's too

:01:37. > :01:42.little too late, for many who have been through the system and they

:01:43. > :01:50.don't think it is good enough. What is happening at the moment is the

:01:51. > :01:54.situation where many parents are having to go on their fraud line,

:01:55. > :02:00.investigation of whether it's fraud or not, and ministers say

:02:01. > :02:06.investigators will bridge the gap where it may not be fraudulent but

:02:07. > :02:13.it is avoiding, seriously, scandalously avoiding but it's

:02:14. > :02:17.almost too late. The system needs to get the opportunity for redress

:02:18. > :02:29.rather than the back-end things. I do hope this review will bring

:02:30. > :02:31.some... I've had the situation for example of retard the debate about

:02:32. > :02:43.national insurance contributions, and there is people gaining their

:02:44. > :02:47.income through being self-employed. Traders, financially complex

:02:48. > :02:52.affairs, from Gingerbread, there's an example of a haulier who had his

:02:53. > :02:58.tax return assessed for child maintenance liabilities and it was

:02:59. > :03:02.on a year when he had bought a truck so that truck took pretty much all

:03:03. > :03:08.his liability having to pay any child maintenance. So the track was

:03:09. > :03:16.being put before the child. That is a scandal. It is unacceptable. We

:03:17. > :03:22.must have a system where we don't want people to not be self-employed

:03:23. > :03:26.but we have to have fairness. We must have fairness for child

:03:27. > :03:30.maintenance. I look forward to the Government getting this right before

:03:31. > :03:35.it's too late for many more parents. I want to see the Minister being

:03:36. > :03:42.able to lead the way on this. In conclusion, time is moving on, the

:03:43. > :03:47.?20 fee, we need to see how it's impacting on poorer families.

:03:48. > :03:51.Finally, to reiterate the words of my honourable friend, and the Prime

:03:52. > :03:56.Minister, we need a child maintenance system which will work

:03:57. > :04:07.for everyone not just the privileged few. I called Margaret Ferrier.

:04:08. > :04:13.Thank you, I was going to say you have got young and now you have

:04:14. > :04:17.someone else in the chair. It's an honour to serve under your

:04:18. > :04:21.chairmanship. I would like to thank the Member for Motherwell for

:04:22. > :04:26.securing this very important debate and, like many other members, my

:04:27. > :04:30.office has been inundated with child maintenance cases at the moment and

:04:31. > :04:41.I've just to mention the honourable member focused on avoidance by

:04:42. > :04:50.self-employed parents. She used her experience as a single mum. The

:04:51. > :04:56.honourable member stated its claim more cases go wrong than right and

:04:57. > :04:59.also mentioned that CMS seem to be pursuing those who are paying and

:05:00. > :05:06.not pursuing those who pay nothing, which is a ludicrous situation. The

:05:07. > :05:14.honourable member stated there must be justice and equity and ongoing

:05:15. > :05:18.maintenance for parents given the redress they need and they have

:05:19. > :05:23.concern and he hopes the Minister will focus on the issues and there

:05:24. > :05:28.is a review of the whole system before it is too late for other

:05:29. > :05:32.parents, but there appears to be, not only problems as we said with

:05:33. > :05:36.the system itself, but also with the operation and they would like to

:05:37. > :05:40.speak about policy to begin with and then highlight some of my

:05:41. > :05:45.constituent cases. It's clear we've had so many cases highlighted why

:05:46. > :05:50.honourable members in this debate today that we're all suffering the

:05:51. > :05:55.same but the are suffering even more than us, so we need to sort this

:05:56. > :06:03.out. I'm going to give the Minister and overview of what I've see the

:06:04. > :06:07.problem is to be addressed. Is not only unreasonable to charge single

:06:08. > :06:10.parents to access their right to support but after the deplorable and

:06:11. > :06:14.some of these we've heard are survivors of domestic abuse and the

:06:15. > :06:19.Government has not even attempted to make exemptions for them. System has

:06:20. > :06:22.real potential to create further distress and it's the position of

:06:23. > :06:27.myself and my party that the Government needs to remove this

:06:28. > :06:31.obstacle which faces single parents in order to protect all children

:06:32. > :06:38.from poverty regardless of their family situation. We need only look

:06:39. > :06:41.at the statistics to understand the logic in our argument. Children who

:06:42. > :06:45.live in single-parent families are almost twice as likely to be a risk

:06:46. > :06:51.of poverty compared to children in coupled families. Brutal cuts due to

:06:52. > :06:57.a severity combined with a rising living costs means child maintenance

:06:58. > :07:01.matters even more in order to protect short of poverty. With no

:07:02. > :07:07.end in sight of a harsh ideological austerity agenda, and living costs

:07:08. > :07:11.looking set to rise further still due to Brexit, the situation looks

:07:12. > :07:14.set to worsen still. If the UK Government is not prepared to take

:07:15. > :07:20.measures such as scrapping child maintenance charges then it cannot

:07:21. > :07:30.claim to be serious in dealing with child poverty. Contrast this with

:07:31. > :07:34.Scotland, they continue to prioritise the rights of children.

:07:35. > :07:37.SNP ministers are bringing forward a child poverty Bill which will

:07:38. > :07:41.enshrine in legislation targets to reduce child poverty and while we

:07:42. > :07:46.will strive ambitiously forward, I hope Westminster will not go against

:07:47. > :07:49.us. The Scottish Government doesn't have the powers over the Child

:07:50. > :07:56.Maintenance Service and myself and my colleagues urge the UK Government

:07:57. > :07:59.to follow the SNP's lead. If it is not prepared to do so then please

:08:00. > :08:02.give us the powers over the Child Maintenance Service and we will do

:08:03. > :08:07.something about it. Vulnerable families and the rights of the child

:08:08. > :08:11.must be protected. The Government cannot shy away from the

:08:12. > :08:15.responsibilities and it must take action to urgently address these

:08:16. > :08:19.ongoing problems with the Child Maintenance Service which we have

:08:20. > :08:24.heard all about today. I'm going to reiterate what everybody has said

:08:25. > :08:27.about Gingerbread's campaign. We support their maintenance matters

:08:28. > :08:32.campaign and the Government should immediately scrap the ?20

:08:33. > :08:38.application fee for single parents on low-income. Get rid of the 4%

:08:39. > :08:42.collection charge and make better provisions to protect domestic abuse

:08:43. > :08:46.survivors. The charges are grossly unfair to the collecting parent and

:08:47. > :08:51.in essence punishes them for the other parents noncompliance. The

:08:52. > :08:56.charges create a barrier to access the statutory service for those in

:08:57. > :09:02.low incomes who are arguably the most in need of support. DWP's own

:09:03. > :09:07.evaluation research shows around half those indirect pay and two

:09:08. > :09:12.fifths of receiving parents with a CSA case closing where on very low

:09:13. > :09:18.incomes. 4% may not sound like much but when you are on a low income it

:09:19. > :09:21.really matters. Government ministers should be concerned that a quarter

:09:22. > :09:27.of receiving parents who have moved from a direct pay to other

:09:28. > :09:31.arrangement said losing 4% of their maintenance was difficult to afford

:09:32. > :09:35.and there seem to be major issues with the internal operations of the

:09:36. > :09:42.service to. Recently, my office as soon a huge spike in the numbers of

:09:43. > :09:45.CMS cases we receive and from today's debate, we confirmed that

:09:46. > :09:49.the case for many honourable members who have contributed to this debate

:09:50. > :09:55.today. My constituents are turning to me today for help as they don't

:09:56. > :09:58.know who to turn to. Naturally, I'm only too happy to help but I am

:09:59. > :10:03.dismayed they are having a frustrating time dealing with the

:10:04. > :10:08.agency directly. Huge part of the problem is when they call they are

:10:09. > :10:11.speaking to a different advise every time who could be at a call centre

:10:12. > :10:17.at different locations across the UK. Repeatedly we are told that they

:10:18. > :10:21.received conflicting information and advice depending on who they speak

:10:22. > :10:27.to. The service my office has been receiving has also declined and on

:10:28. > :10:32.two occasions I've had to escalate cases out of sheer frustration. You

:10:33. > :10:35.would expect by bringing the MP hotline my staff would receive the

:10:36. > :10:40.appropriate level of service but this has not been the case. We're

:10:41. > :10:45.also not given responses by e-mail, only by letter and this slows the

:10:46. > :10:48.entire process down. Why can't we be given summary responses confirming

:10:49. > :10:55.what has been discussed and disclosed by telephone? I have had

:10:56. > :10:58.one constituent case for around 18 months now. Louise came to me

:10:59. > :11:03.because she felt her ex was hiding money from CMS and you can get them

:11:04. > :11:06.to look into things further. After we got involved they agreed to

:11:07. > :11:10.escalate the case to the financial investigations unit and initially

:11:11. > :11:16.she was advised a timescale might be six months and then it went to a

:11:17. > :11:21.year and so on. Parents and MPs offices understand that this work is

:11:22. > :11:24.sensitive and secretive but many parents are just left feeling

:11:25. > :11:31.nothing is happening. Meanwhile, they are left to struggle and not

:11:32. > :11:33.receiving maintenance payment. Regular contact from their

:11:34. > :11:38.caseworker is essential here even if it's only to say no update.

:11:39. > :11:42.Ultimately people want to know they have not been forgotten about. The

:11:43. > :11:46.service I've received in this case was appalling and my office must

:11:47. > :11:50.accord about 20 times for an update and never received a call back.

:11:51. > :11:58.Until we escalated it to a senior level. Two separate constituents

:11:59. > :12:02.have intimated CMS and tried to push a method when both parents have been

:12:03. > :12:05.happy with direct pay. And adviser was instructed to do this for the

:12:06. > :12:11.department to make money from collection fees? Another

:12:12. > :12:15.constituent, John, came to me after receiving a letter about arrears in

:12:16. > :12:19.his account. The arrears were extortionate. As were the proposed

:12:20. > :12:23.monthly payments. Once they got involved, my office asked for a full

:12:24. > :12:28.breakdown of the account and as John disputed it, and we received the

:12:29. > :12:32.wrong information from CMS in a telephone call and were told the

:12:33. > :12:36.arrears were approximately ?700. My case worker called the constituent

:12:37. > :12:40.to tell him and within five minutes of hanging the phone up, we received

:12:41. > :12:47.a further call from CMS with a correction added thousands of pounds

:12:48. > :12:50.to the figure. Understandably, I was angry and asked for a full breakdown

:12:51. > :12:56.and this took approximately six weeks to arrive. This case is still

:12:57. > :13:02.ongoing, moving at a glacial pace due to the Child Maintenance

:13:03. > :13:05.Service. Does this sound like an efficiently run service? It's clear

:13:06. > :13:08.the system is broken. I think the rise we are seeing and the number of

:13:09. > :13:15.cases is only the tip of the iceberg. And when my office and my

:13:16. > :13:21.constituents don't get the service, it impacts on everyone especially

:13:22. > :13:26.the children. So please, the Minister must act to protect them

:13:27. > :13:37.and stop the suffering of my and other honourable members'

:13:38. > :13:42.constituents. Thank you. I would like to pay tribute to the

:13:43. > :13:47.honourable member for Motherwell for securing this important debate

:13:48. > :13:51.today. This is absolutely right, parents are separated or divorced,

:13:52. > :13:55.fulfil their obligations to their children and provide financial

:13:56. > :13:59.support to them. As the honourable ember for Motherwell mentioned in

:14:00. > :14:03.her opening speech, child maintenance is financial support for

:14:04. > :14:06.a child's everyday living costs, paid by one parent to another once

:14:07. > :14:10.they have separated from one another. It is vital as a source of

:14:11. > :14:16.income for separated families. Is meant to work by assessing a paying

:14:17. > :14:21.parents ability to pay, calculating the amount and if necessary

:14:22. > :14:24.collecting and enforcing payment. However, this system has a number of

:14:25. > :14:33.failings which is clearly outlined today. It is forcing more and more

:14:34. > :14:35.children into poverty. Gingerbread, supporting single-parent families,

:14:36. > :14:43.maintain the governments one size fits all approach for children from

:14:44. > :14:50.separated families, is putting them at risk. There's real concern CMS,

:14:51. > :14:55.brought into effect in 2012, prioritises over the interests of

:14:56. > :14:59.children. The introduction of the three charges of ?20 application

:15:00. > :15:03.fee, enforcement charges for nonpayment and a collective fee for

:15:04. > :15:07.those who ask the service to administer the payment is putting

:15:08. > :15:09.off parents who cannot afford this fee from claiming financial report

:15:10. > :15:19.their children are entitled to. And collect unpaid, parents must

:15:20. > :15:25.hand over 20% on top... I will cut that out as I think we've heard it a

:15:26. > :15:29.lot. These unfair charges will impact survivors of domestic abuse

:15:30. > :15:32.who are unable to have a family -based arrangement, fear that they

:15:33. > :15:36.have no option but to use the service as they are frightened, too

:15:37. > :15:40.frightened, to have a direct link to their abuser. I echo the concerns a

:15:41. > :15:48.previous speakers and the excellent contribution the member from others

:15:49. > :15:52.very, both personal and professional experience was clearly outlined many

:15:53. > :15:56.of the problems today. It is a crucial and callous tax on child

:15:57. > :16:01.support that ultimately is the children who will lose out on money

:16:02. > :16:05.intended to support them. Crucially, the application fee can be waived

:16:06. > :16:10.for domestic valiant victims. Around a third of applicants are given this

:16:11. > :16:14.exemption but no such exemption exists for the collection service.

:16:15. > :16:19.It is becoming increasingly clear that CMS has yet to deliver the

:16:20. > :16:23.modern fit per purpose servers intended by the transition from

:16:24. > :16:27.child support agency. That system was replaced by CMS because it was

:16:28. > :16:31.riddled with feelings such as mistakes being made during the

:16:32. > :16:39.assessment process and poor performance. However, CMS is

:16:40. > :16:43.performing just as poorly. June in part to care for case management and

:16:44. > :16:50.lack of information and training for the staff supplying the service ever

:16:51. > :16:53.parents who continued to hamper performance of the CMS. Parents on

:16:54. > :16:58.previous child maintenance schemes are only being invited by the

:16:59. > :17:02.Government to apply to the new scheme. Transfer is not automatic. I

:17:03. > :17:07.would be grateful of the Minister could explain why that transfer is

:17:08. > :17:10.not automatic. The recent figures suggest a backlog of 4 billion in

:17:11. > :17:13.uncollected child maintenance payments. Does the Minister agree

:17:14. > :17:18.that this is completely unacceptable? I'm sure she does. And

:17:19. > :17:23.can the Minister outlined what steps the Government is taking to deal

:17:24. > :17:27.with this backlog? The money is owned by non-resident payments built

:17:28. > :17:31.up over 22 years with figures showing that 1.2 million resident

:17:32. > :17:36.parents are old child maintenance. These figures show that the vast

:17:37. > :17:41.majority of child maintenance money was accumulated under the CSA

:17:42. > :17:45.scheme. However, if the 93 million has been developed under the child

:17:46. > :17:50.maintenance services them. The Government has failed to increase

:17:51. > :17:54.the incentive nonresident parents to take responsibility for their

:17:55. > :17:59.children and increase the incomes of their children as a consequence. Can

:18:00. > :18:04.the Minister helped outline exactly how the Government is actively

:18:05. > :18:06.pursuing unpaid trout maintenance? Will the Government provide

:18:07. > :18:10.compensation to the families who have been left waiting for their

:18:11. > :18:18.unpaid maintenance? The National Audit Office said in September 2016,

:18:19. > :18:25.there were more than 1.1 million cases of arrears of though most were

:18:26. > :18:29.from the CS a scheme. Since the introduction of the new scheme, the

:18:30. > :18:34.National auditory office said the department has reduced the number of

:18:35. > :18:37.enforcement actions it is taking. The Government has stated they are

:18:38. > :18:41.offering parents a fresh start by suggesting they write off debts to

:18:42. > :18:45.which their children are legally entitled. These are some of the

:18:46. > :18:51.poorest children in society, suffering from as a result of

:18:52. > :18:55.incompetence and cut and enforcement workers and important work, so why

:18:56. > :19:00.do the Government not restore staffing levels, step up enforcement

:19:01. > :19:07.and ensure that the new child maintenance service is obliged to

:19:08. > :19:09.collect outstanding debts? Child maintenance can make a huge

:19:10. > :19:15.practical difference for single parents. It can help a fuel bills,

:19:16. > :19:20.buy clothes for children, fund school trips, put food in their

:19:21. > :19:23.mouths and clothes on their backs. For particular vulnerable families,

:19:24. > :19:26.including single parent families on benefits, it can also be the

:19:27. > :19:30.difference between children growing up in poverty and not. The risk of

:19:31. > :19:34.poverty for children in single-parent households is nearly

:19:35. > :19:38.twice that as their children in two-parent households. This is

:19:39. > :19:42.particularly important consent that under this Government, 4 million of

:19:43. > :19:47.our children in the UK now live in poverty. Child maintenance alone

:19:48. > :19:53.lifts one fifth of all income single-parent families out of

:19:54. > :19:56.poverty. Social Security is being cut and child poverty predicted to

:19:57. > :20:01.dramatically increase, it is more important than ever that children do

:20:02. > :20:06.not miss out on this vital financial support. Can the Minister please

:20:07. > :20:10.outline what steps the Government is taking to tackle the increasing

:20:11. > :20:13.levels of child poverty in the country? Finally, one in four

:20:14. > :20:17.families in Britain is a single-parent family and a million

:20:18. > :20:23.and they have families rely on a Government run scheme to ensure they

:20:24. > :20:27.get the right child maintenance. When maintenance goes under paid, it

:20:28. > :20:31.is our children who lose out. Increasing the barriers to statutory

:20:32. > :20:35.support is an ill-advised move. If the Government intends for more

:20:36. > :20:39.children to benefit from maintenance arrangements, I urge the Government

:20:40. > :20:42.to do more to make sure that these vulnerable families and children do

:20:43. > :20:49.not lose out from these changes, but benefit from them. I called the

:20:50. > :20:52.Minister, Caroline Noakes. It is a pleasure to serve under your

:20:53. > :20:55.chairmanship. I would like to add my congratulations to the honourable

:20:56. > :20:58.member for Motherwell and Wishaw for having secured this important

:20:59. > :21:02.debate. She is totally committed to this issue and I would like to thank

:21:03. > :21:05.her for the work she has done in raising the profile of the child

:21:06. > :21:08.maintenance service and for the contribution she made this morning.

:21:09. > :21:14.I would of course like to thank members on all sides and what struck

:21:15. > :21:18.me this morning is that this is an issue which certainly transcends

:21:19. > :21:23.party lines. We have heard from the three main parties in Westminster

:21:24. > :21:27.and indeed from my friends in Northern Ireland and what I am very

:21:28. > :21:32.conscious of and I think as my friends in a fuel raise the question

:21:33. > :21:35.as to whether I felt the heat of this issue. I would like to injure

:21:36. > :21:39.him on this beautiful spring day, I certainly do feel the heat. Members

:21:40. > :21:43.have made me feel at this morning, but more importantly than that, much

:21:44. > :21:48.more importantly than that, I feel the heat of this issue every single

:21:49. > :21:52.time I open an e-mail from a parent with CARE who is not receiving the

:21:53. > :21:56.correct amount of maintenance. I also feel it when I receive e-mails

:21:57. > :22:00.from nonresident parents who are raising concerns about the amount

:22:01. > :22:04.they have to contribute and whether arrears that have built up are

:22:05. > :22:07.indeed the correct figure, so yes, I feel the heat, and I also concur

:22:08. > :22:11.with what I think every single member has said this morning, our

:22:12. > :22:16.first thought should be for the children. This is not a question of

:22:17. > :22:21.nonresident parents, parents with CARE, their battles, to be quite

:22:22. > :22:24.frank, are not of interest to me in comparison to what we feel for those

:22:25. > :22:29.children who need the support and maintenance from both parents. I

:22:30. > :22:33.would like to say, and I will say that at the outset, I made a comment

:22:34. > :22:37.at the select committee which I think was last year now, a very long

:22:38. > :22:41.time ago it seems, when I was a very new minister to this issue, that I

:22:42. > :22:46.wanted to hear the cases. I do, because that helps me go to CMS

:22:47. > :22:49.officials and point out where there have been failings, where we could

:22:50. > :22:53.do better, and that matters to me. As I have said, it matters that

:22:54. > :22:56.there should be maintenance following two children in as many

:22:57. > :23:01.cases as possible and so I said it at the select committee, I will

:23:02. > :23:04.repeat it again. I welcome receiving e-mails from both parents with CARE

:23:05. > :23:09.and nonresident parents because I need to know. Although, given this

:23:10. > :23:13.morning's news, I do not know how much longer I need to know for. I

:23:14. > :23:16.want to be clear that the responsibility for ensuring child

:23:17. > :23:21.maintenance is paid on time and in full lies with the pain parent.

:23:22. > :23:24.Parents who think they have got away with not paying their maintenance as

:23:25. > :23:27.their children grow up are not cheating the system, they are

:23:28. > :23:30.treating their own children. The Honourable Lady for Motherwell and

:23:31. > :23:34.Wishaw spoke of having to think about what she left out when she

:23:35. > :23:38.composed her contribution this morning. I always think, I wake up

:23:39. > :23:43.thinking of those children who are not receiving the correct amount of

:23:44. > :23:46.maintenance and the words of my honourable friend the member of

:23:47. > :23:50.Enfield Southgate will bring in my ears, that a truck was more

:23:51. > :23:54.important than paying maintenance to children. The DWP is currently

:23:55. > :23:58.delivering a copper heads of package of reforms to the system and those

:23:59. > :24:01.are intended to both encourage and support parents to take

:24:02. > :24:05.responsibility for paying for their children's upbringing. Where parents

:24:06. > :24:08.do not meet their responsibilities, the statutory scheme is there to

:24:09. > :24:15.enforce payments. Honourable members have mentioned repeatedly this

:24:16. > :24:17.morning, and they are right to do so, the old system, the Child

:24:18. > :24:20.support agency, which did not provide direct support to parents

:24:21. > :24:23.and was expensive to run. Members have acknowledged that the bulk of

:24:24. > :24:28.our readers that have been referred to a crude under the former CSA. The

:24:29. > :24:31.new system run by the child maintenance system is meant to

:24:32. > :24:35.address some of the shortcomings of CSA and we have learned from the

:24:36. > :24:38.mistakes of the past. Where the previous system off and drove a

:24:39. > :24:41.wedge between parents, the new system is determined to encourage

:24:42. > :24:45.collaboration at every stage. The evidence that we have shows that

:24:46. > :24:50.parental collaboration has a direct, positive impact on children's

:24:51. > :24:53.outcomes such as health, emotional well-being and indeed their academic

:24:54. > :24:59.attainment. We know that a constructive into parental

:25:00. > :25:03.relationship, whether parents are together or separated, will improve

:25:04. > :25:06.the outcomes for children. The new child maintenance options service

:25:07. > :25:09.act as a gateway to the scheme, ensuring parents are given the

:25:10. > :25:12.information and support they need to create an arrangement which is right

:25:13. > :25:16.for them, whether that is a family -based arrangement or a statutory

:25:17. > :25:20.one. Our agents receive specialist training to help them deal

:25:21. > :25:24.sensitively with clients and tailored support is delivered by

:25:25. > :25:30.phone, live web chat and e-mail. The child maintenance options has helped

:25:31. > :25:32.one quarter of clients to contact them set up family -based agreements

:25:33. > :25:36.which we know are better for children in the long term and the

:25:37. > :25:38.number of parents who have made an effective arrangement following

:25:39. > :25:45.contact with them has increased in the first two quarters of 2016 from

:25:46. > :25:48.82% to 87%. We know that maintenance arrangements, while important, are

:25:49. > :25:53.just one of the many issues that parents face when they separate. Our

:25:54. > :25:56.agents are also able to sign books parents to a wide range of

:25:57. > :25:59.organisations that can provide specialist support and advice on

:26:00. > :26:03.issues they may need help with in their relationships. These charges,

:26:04. > :26:08.of which we have heard this morning, were introduced in 2014 to provide a

:26:09. > :26:11.further incentive for parents to collaborate and we know that

:26:12. > :26:15.collaboration works in the best interests of the children. Whilst

:26:16. > :26:18.this service is primarily funded by the taxpayer, the charges contribute

:26:19. > :26:22.a small amount, helping to offset some of the costs associated with

:26:23. > :26:26.providing the service, but it is a small amount, in the region of 10%.

:26:27. > :26:29.All of these measures are designed to encourage parents who can to make

:26:30. > :26:34.their own family -based arrangement and it is perhaps inevitable that

:26:35. > :26:37.the families who end up in the statutory scheme will be the ones

:26:38. > :26:42.for whom this is the most difficult. I do think it is important to

:26:43. > :26:46.reflect on this point because parents who can collaborate to do.

:26:47. > :26:51.Those who are committed to working together seldom come within the

:26:52. > :26:55.orbit of the CMS. Therefore, it follows that the parents with whom

:26:56. > :27:01.we have contacts are the ones who are most likely to have conflict, to

:27:02. > :27:06.have difficulties and it's a truth that as the Honourable member for

:27:07. > :27:09.Strangford said, family -based arrangements are the ideal solution.

:27:10. > :27:13.They provide the best outcomes and we do not want parents to have to

:27:14. > :27:18.come within a statutory scheme. But, of course, we acknowledge that is

:27:19. > :27:22.not always possible. We continue to use all the tools at our disposal to

:27:23. > :27:26.maintain compliance and recover arrears, but it is inevitable that

:27:27. > :27:29.some will accrue. Some parents go to great lengths to avoid their

:27:30. > :27:34.responsibilities. I think at the end of last year, I've visited our CMS

:27:35. > :27:38.Centre in Hastings and spoke to the enforcement team and the financial

:27:39. > :27:42.investigation unit. I was very impressed by their professionalism

:27:43. > :27:49.and dedication but also struck by how difficult job is. Perhaps it is

:27:50. > :27:53.inevitable in a buoyant employment market that nonresident parents will

:27:54. > :27:57.find it easier to change job than where it is the economy not so good.

:27:58. > :28:01.We have heard from various Honourable members are one of the

:28:02. > :28:03.significant problems lies with the self-employed and with company

:28:04. > :28:08.directors and, of course, it is there that we have the biggest

:28:09. > :28:11.challenges. The financial investigation unit and the

:28:12. > :28:15.enforcement teams are determined to do what they can, using the powers

:28:16. > :28:20.that are already available to them. We can at present make deductions

:28:21. > :28:25.from single held bank accounts, not from joint bank accounts, and are

:28:26. > :28:29.looking at how we can best use our powers to increase that to joint

:28:30. > :28:33.bank accounts because I am very conscious that there are some

:28:34. > :28:38.nonresident parents who will hide assets and income within the bank

:28:39. > :28:42.accounts of other family members and it is those sorts of abuses that we

:28:43. > :28:45.desperately need to address and it will form part of our every strategy

:28:46. > :28:51.which will be publishing later in the spring, notwithstanding my

:28:52. > :28:54.earlier comment about this morning's announcement. I promised the

:28:55. > :28:58.Honourable Lady for Motherwell and Wishaw that I would leave her some

:28:59. > :29:01.time to conclude. I am conscious I have been short of time and you will

:29:02. > :29:06.see I have a mass of information that I would like the opportunity to

:29:07. > :29:10.share with all Honourable members. By parting shot to you all is, if we

:29:11. > :29:14.are to have in the strategy and an enforcement strategy that really

:29:15. > :29:18.works, we need to be creative. We need to be determined to do it on my

:29:19. > :29:21.door is always open to members who wish to come forward with new and

:29:22. > :29:27.innovative ideas as to how we can best make parents take

:29:28. > :29:33.responsibility for their children. I call Marion Fellows for about 45

:29:34. > :29:37.seconds! Welder Minister please send her notes, the things she was unable

:29:38. > :29:44.to give to us, because we all want to know what she may have left. None

:29:45. > :29:48.of us can say we will be here after the next election, but this issue

:29:49. > :29:56.will not go away and needs to be addressed.

:29:57. > :30:02.As many are of the opinion, say aye. I think the ayes habit. Order,

:30:03. > :30:34.order. Order, order. I Caulker Saint Oswald

:30:35. > :30:37.to move the motion. It is a pleasure to serve under you, the House has

:30:38. > :30:39.considered the relationship between considered the relationship between

:30:40. > :30:46.the Serious Fraud Office and other agencies. This debate because of

:30:47. > :30:52.concerns investment losses by my constituents and the chair of the

:30:53. > :30:58.all-party group on income fund. As a new member of the House, I am coming

:30:59. > :31:01.fresh to an issue many other longer standard people have considered. I

:31:02. > :31:07.make no apology for that. Also I'm not a lawyer, so I don't intend to

:31:08. > :31:12.get into legal principles underlying the work of the Serious Fraud

:31:13. > :31:16.Office. Having participated in a debate on funding, I was interested

:31:17. > :31:21.to hear talk of the need to make changes to legal frameworks. I thank

:31:22. > :31:26.the library for the support it has provided, I founded summary helpful

:31:27. > :31:31.in confirming there is a problem, certainly our perception, possibly

:31:32. > :31:38.also of the balance of the law. And I quote, the enforcement of field of

:31:39. > :31:41.financial services is surprisingly complicated. It involves a matrix of

:31:42. > :31:44.law and rules overseen by different bodies, agencies or regulators. It

:31:45. > :31:50.often contradicts a common-sense view of what actually is a crime. In

:31:51. > :31:55.preparing for that debate, I was amazed to learn of what I consider

:31:56. > :32:01.to be under resourcing of the Serious Fraud Office. ?60 million is

:32:02. > :32:07.the budget, should we be denoted net? Why should there be an increase

:32:08. > :32:10.in capacity? In a recent speech, Megan Butler of the Financial

:32:11. > :32:16.Conduct Authority identified the banking sector alone estimates its

:32:17. > :32:21.cost at some ?5 million a year. In that context, the annual cost of the

:32:22. > :32:25.SFL seems remarkably low, and increasing it does seem to be

:32:26. > :32:30.worthwhile. Some honourable members may have helped put in place a

:32:31. > :32:35.legislative framework that appears to have so badly failed my

:32:36. > :32:40.constituents and others caught up in the scandal. A debate on

:32:41. > :32:43.relationship between the SFO and other agencies may help them

:32:44. > :32:48.consider whether they view the current situation as satisfactory.

:32:49. > :32:52.Mr Paisley, when we look at it in detail, we must look at issues in

:32:53. > :32:55.sequence, we must decide the balance we want to see between the criminal

:32:56. > :33:00.law and a regular tree framework, and only when that is click can we

:33:01. > :33:04.allocate responsibility to the relevant agency. I would say two

:33:05. > :33:08.examples of where the balance is perceived to be wrong. First,

:33:09. > :33:13.despite the banking sector bringing UK economy to the brink of collapse,

:33:14. > :33:18.very few individuals have faced sanctions, whether regular tree or

:33:19. > :33:24.criminal following the 2008 crisis. Second, the relationship between

:33:25. > :33:30.benchmarks in which billions of pounds, was not until recently a

:33:31. > :33:34.specific offence. By contrast, and in a crypt mortgage application has

:33:35. > :33:37.long been classified as mortgage fraud, and many applicants and their

:33:38. > :33:43.advisers have faced prosecution of such a crime. If law enforcement was

:33:44. > :33:46.similarly lapse in response to any other explosion of what most of us

:33:47. > :33:51.regard as crime, there would be outraged. But instead what we are

:33:52. > :33:55.seeing is an increasing citizen and appeared there is one law for them

:33:56. > :34:01.and another law for us, and we need to address that cynicism. The former

:34:02. > :34:06.father of the House did not always see eye to eye with my party.

:34:07. > :34:10.However, he did leave a great legacy as a parliamentarian. During his

:34:11. > :34:13.campaign over the sinking of the Belgrano, he highlighted the

:34:14. > :34:17.principle that small inconsistencies tend to be part of larger

:34:18. > :34:22.inconsistencies and seemingly small things are part of larger things.

:34:23. > :34:28.I'm thinking about that issue, it struck me that if this House could

:34:29. > :34:32.not understand why such a fraudulent enterprise was able to operate for

:34:33. > :34:36.so long, and its perpetrators to go undetected for so long, we could

:34:37. > :34:41.have little confidence that the system for regulating financial

:34:42. > :34:45.services are fit for purpose. Mr Paisley, I make no pretence of

:34:46. > :34:49.having an answer, by holding this debate I provide the Minister will

:34:50. > :34:53.have an opportunity to reassure the House that the government thinks it

:34:54. > :34:59.understands and that it does propose to take steps to prevent a

:35:00. > :35:03.recurrence. An investigation into the fund is underway and idyllic

:35:04. > :35:08.forward to the outcome. However, much information is already in the

:35:09. > :35:13.public domain. In brief, it was an investment vehicle launched in 2008

:35:14. > :35:20.under the title the guaranteed low risk investment fund. Members of a

:35:21. > :35:28.certain vintage, like myself, might recall the wily EQ deep cartoons, in

:35:29. > :35:34.which a coyote bought items. The devices misfired or backfired, so

:35:35. > :35:38.calling a phone that promise a high rate of return guaranteed low risk

:35:39. > :35:43.might raise a session and it was just the sort of product sold by

:35:44. > :35:49.trading. But this phone did not come. The guaranteed low risk front

:35:50. > :35:55.was fully signed up with a capital grant. Capita describes itself as

:35:56. > :35:59.UK's leading customer business and professional support organisation.

:36:00. > :36:02.Indeed, a few years ago, the Ministry of Justice brought Cabot

:36:03. > :36:06.inti operate a contract at the concerns were raised about the

:36:07. > :36:14.original operators. Capita is known to sit close to the heart of the

:36:15. > :36:16.UK's financial services sector. So invested would rightly expect

:36:17. > :36:20.officers authorising the use of the brand to have a higher version, they

:36:21. > :36:26.would not expect that name to be allied with an obvious scam. But

:36:27. > :36:30.unfortunately for investors, the supposedly guaranteed low risk fund

:36:31. > :36:35.proved no better at performing than a trade rocket and careered out of

:36:36. > :36:41.control from day one. Four years later, the fund now rebranded hit

:36:42. > :36:45.the wall, taking the savings of over 1000 investors weathered, with

:36:46. > :36:51.losses of over ?100 million. Less than a third of which has been

:36:52. > :36:53.recovered. Mr Paisley, we know the fund careered out of control from

:36:54. > :37:03.day one because one of the participants said so in the case.

:37:04. > :37:07.The QC sitting as a deputy judge stated that in his view, passages

:37:08. > :37:12.within the fund 's information memorandum aware, and I quote,

:37:13. > :37:16.suggestive of an intention that the fund would lend directly to the

:37:17. > :37:20.ultimate board work arriving in the loan. However, the evidence given in

:37:21. > :37:25.court by Michael Davis, at the centre of the fund, was that this

:37:26. > :37:29.was never the intention. However, they might have been expressed. From

:37:30. > :37:35.the start, the funds went to a single group of companies.

:37:36. > :37:40.Immediately they view some of the funds to replace De Groot's past

:37:41. > :37:43.dodgy investments. Mr pacey, I hope the origin of this fund is the

:37:44. > :37:49.product of a highly regulated financial services firm, central to

:37:50. > :37:53.the inquiry. I believe it should also be of interest to the Serious

:37:54. > :37:58.Fraud Office. If it is not, there must be something seriously wrong

:37:59. > :38:01.with the body of law and are planning financial services sector.

:38:02. > :38:08.Without capita, as operator boosting the funds, it may never have got off

:38:09. > :38:12.the ground, saving a lot of people a great deal of money and distress.

:38:13. > :38:18.And we do know a lot about the operation, because of whistle-blower

:38:19. > :38:22.George Catullus. In 2011, shortly after becoming its chief exec 11, he

:38:23. > :38:28.approached the SFA with clear evidence of Chuter defrauding the

:38:29. > :38:33.fund. In a recent finding, the complaints Commissioner expressed

:38:34. > :38:38.doubts about whether at the time the SFA considered whether fraud had

:38:39. > :38:43.occurred. Indeed the FSA delayed acting on sharing his allegations

:38:44. > :38:47.for appropriately 18 months, allowing them to read in millions of

:38:48. > :38:52.pounds more from investors and to pass then to tutor to disappear. The

:38:53. > :38:55.companies in the group entered administration in 2012 and went into

:38:56. > :39:01.insolvent liquidation. When the information given by him was passed

:39:02. > :39:05.on, despite the scale of losses identified by this time, it wasn't

:39:06. > :39:11.passed to the SFO, it was passed to the City of London Police. Mr

:39:12. > :39:14.Paisley, it seems the FSA was reluctant to do anything that

:39:15. > :39:17.flagged up this case as one of fraud. Especially as it had been

:39:18. > :39:21.allowed to continue for so long under their watch. It is now six

:39:22. > :39:27.years since Mr Patel is made his report to the FSA. In these

:39:28. > :39:29.circumstances, the likelihood of any court action against the

:39:30. > :39:34.participants being challenged on the grounds of delay must be high. When

:39:35. > :39:38.I look the detail of the agreements between the SFO to cover

:39:39. > :39:44.circumstances such as this, I was disappointed at what I found. The

:39:45. > :39:50.SFO's website contains protocols, an agreement with the SAA is not

:39:51. > :39:54.listed. Their own enforcement Gade makes no reference to fraud or a

:39:55. > :40:00.relationship would be SFO. In 2014, two other directors were

:40:01. > :40:03.disqualified for a combined total of 16 years. The insolvency service

:40:04. > :40:09.cited their failure to the relationship as the key factor in

:40:10. > :40:14.the failure of the fund. I'm not sure what conclusion could draw

:40:15. > :40:17.other than that the nature of this relationship, which was fundamental

:40:18. > :40:23.to the operation and had functioned the nearly four years, was not an

:40:24. > :40:26.accident. But again, there appears to be no published agreement between

:40:27. > :40:31.the insolvency service and the SFO, or at least there is not one on

:40:32. > :40:34.either website. In the case of the insolvency service, there is a

:40:35. > :40:38.reference in his guidance to the possibility that if an offence may

:40:39. > :40:43.have been committed, this may result in a report to the appropriate

:40:44. > :40:48.investigating authority. One of the key event in the light of the fund

:40:49. > :40:53.came in September 2009, year after the fund was open. Capita stepped

:40:54. > :40:57.down and was replaced. Surprisingly it seemed this change triggered no

:40:58. > :41:01.requirement for Jude dividends and no warranty in respect of the

:41:02. > :41:06.operation of the fund -- due diligence. The departure the fund

:41:07. > :41:11.and the conflict of interest on its side must have been well known by

:41:12. > :41:14.that time because one of the early axe blue gate was to issue a new

:41:15. > :41:19.information memorandum, which apparently brought the terms of the

:41:20. > :41:23.funds's memorandum into close alignment. One might have expected

:41:24. > :41:27.the discovery of this discrepancy would have resulted in some action,

:41:28. > :41:31.other than for them to seek to align the paperwork with a practice they

:41:32. > :41:35.had inherited. I note that in some areas, system are suspicious

:41:36. > :41:41.activity report has been established. In 2014 to 15, over

:41:42. > :41:44.300,000 reports were submitted, a volume of reporting underpinned by

:41:45. > :41:49.the clear identification that it is a criminal offence to fail to report

:41:50. > :41:52.knowledge or concerns about money-laundering or if someone may

:41:53. > :41:57.be gathered money to fund terrorism. It seems the operation became

:41:58. > :42:03.practice in using funds to make the running costs with elements of the

:42:04. > :42:07.group's cows been falsified to overstate the assets. As chief

:42:08. > :42:13.executive, Mr Patel is initiated a protest, including whether it should

:42:14. > :42:17.declare its insolvency. In his report to the FSA, he highlights

:42:18. > :42:21.directors continue to draw high salaries and benefits and

:42:22. > :42:25.consultants establish regular felines, despite being aware of new

:42:26. > :42:31.funds would been consumed with no plan in place of the group to be

:42:32. > :42:34.return to stability. Surely in terms of the FSA principles, the

:42:35. > :42:39.participants should have been obliged to report their knowledge

:42:40. > :42:41.and concerns. By departing so markedly from the information

:42:42. > :42:46.memorandum, they had collectively followed into the way of publishing

:42:47. > :42:50.false information. I can think of no reason why the people who were aware

:42:51. > :42:54.of this fraud should not have been under an obligation to report to the

:42:55. > :42:59.SCA or the FSO, that the funds are being handled in a way which did not

:43:00. > :43:04.match up with the information memorandum. Instead of being met by

:43:05. > :43:10.confusion, as occurred with the report, the instruction of a formal

:43:11. > :43:15.mechanism may provide clarity the system needs. And I was already

:43:16. > :43:21.highlighted, if an ordinary citizen had committed a comparable level of

:43:22. > :43:24.dishonesty in computing a mortgage application, they would face

:43:25. > :43:28.investigation with a view to a criminal prosecution. Is it right

:43:29. > :43:32.that those embedded in our financial services sector should be protected

:43:33. > :43:39.from such investigations? Or should we ensure early involvement by the

:43:40. > :43:43.FSO for the police? In conclusion, I want to mention the senior managers

:43:44. > :43:46.regime was in previous surveys I have decided as a solution to many

:43:47. > :43:52.of the problems experienced in the sector. Having looked at some of the

:43:53. > :43:57.consultation materials issued as part of putting the regime in place,

:43:58. > :44:01.I have doubts that will be the case. The consultation paper on duty of

:44:02. > :44:04.responsibility but senior managers appear to contain a reference to

:44:05. > :44:10.fraud and no reference to the FSO. If I have missed it or if it is

:44:11. > :44:13.buried, I would be happy to have it highlighted, but if I haven't missed

:44:14. > :44:17.it or it is in there, that the striking as an admission that must

:44:18. > :44:21.be corrected. I found the discussion paper on the legal function even

:44:22. > :44:25.more concerning because it opens the prospect of the firm's heads of

:44:26. > :44:29.legal function being excluded from it. In terms of issues such as the

:44:30. > :44:37.design of investment and the operation, regulated should not have

:44:38. > :44:41.any close but. It strikes me we still have some way to go to

:44:42. > :44:44.properly embed a broad aware approach into the red literary

:44:45. > :44:49.framework of the financial services sector. Two ways, and I will be here

:44:50. > :44:54.the Minister's opinions, which can be done would be to properly

:44:55. > :45:00.resourced the SFO and create a much stronger links between the work of

:45:01. > :45:04.the SFO. I look forward to hearing the Commons and all these points.

:45:05. > :45:07.The question is at the House has considered the relationship between

:45:08. > :45:08.the Serious Fraud Office and other agencies. I call the Solicitor

:45:09. > :45:17.General. It's a pleasure to serve and your

:45:18. > :45:20.chairmanship and I congratulate the member for East River ship bringing

:45:21. > :45:25.forward this debate. I noted the remark she made in the debate that

:45:26. > :45:30.we held on an associate issue with the FSO in February of this year and

:45:31. > :45:33.can I pay tribute to her and colleagues for raising what is

:45:34. > :45:40.undoubtedly a very serious issue that has caused real loss to those

:45:41. > :45:44.who invested in the cannot scheme. She has listed her concerns and

:45:45. > :45:51.rightfully reflected the fact that she has already raised these with

:45:52. > :45:55.the FCA and she will appreciate, of course, that the Financial Conduct

:45:56. > :46:02.Authority is a separate, independent body and I are not empowered to give

:46:03. > :46:08.the House to date a commentary about its, but I can say it is still

:46:09. > :46:10.ongoing. It is a complex one and it is fully appreciated that many

:46:11. > :46:15.investors are still out of pocket and it is understood very clearly

:46:16. > :46:20.that certainty is needed about whether or not they can and should

:46:21. > :46:26.expect to receive compensation. They will be updated as soon as they can

:46:27. > :46:29.buy the FCA. They are themselves encouraging investors to consider

:46:30. > :46:35.what they can do in the meantime to try and protect their position. The

:46:36. > :46:40.Honourable Lady has raised wider issues, first of all about the

:46:41. > :46:44.status of funding of the SFO itself and second to read about its

:46:45. > :46:50.relation to other agencies that have the role of helping to police the

:46:51. > :46:55.question of economic crime, misconduct and the sort of activity

:46:56. > :47:00.that frankly damages the reputation of not just the City of London but

:47:01. > :47:04.the whole of the United Kingdom when it comes to financial services. I

:47:05. > :47:08.can assure her to begin with that the Government takes that matter

:47:09. > :47:17.extremely seriously because it isn't just a question about economic

:47:18. > :47:20.reputation, it is one as well frankly our national security which

:47:21. > :47:26.is why it was welcomed last year that the Home Secretary made an

:47:27. > :47:31.announcement that there would be wider work carried out through the

:47:32. > :47:36.Cabinet Office in order to examine our response to economic crime more

:47:37. > :47:42.broadly. That examination will include looking at the effectiveness

:47:43. > :47:46.of our framework, the capabilities, resources, powers available to the

:47:47. > :47:52.organisations that tackle economic crime. Some fundamental questions of

:47:53. > :47:57.the type that she asked are being embraced by the Cabinet Office's own

:47:58. > :48:03.examination. The S F all does vital work. It tackles the most serious

:48:04. > :48:07.instances of fraud, bribery and corruption. It is a very important

:48:08. > :48:13.part of our important regime here in the UK. And I think it is right that

:48:14. > :48:17.there should be a continuing question asked about the adequacy of

:48:18. > :48:20.the way in which we deal with economic crime and the way in which

:48:21. > :48:25.we can improve it. The Honourable Lady is writes to ask questions

:48:26. > :48:30.based upon lie bore, for example, and a sort of activity that we saw

:48:31. > :48:36.taking place at the time of the economic crash back in 2008. Well it

:48:37. > :48:39.is welcome that there have been a number of prosecutions and indeed

:48:40. > :48:45.convictions for people who were involved in manipulating the Libor

:48:46. > :48:50.resume, I agree with her. I think that more needs to be done. It is

:48:51. > :48:54.acutely incumbent, I think, upon Government and upon the enforcement

:48:55. > :48:58.agencies to ensure that at all times, they are asking that

:48:59. > :49:02.question. Can I be sure her about funding? She has rightly raise that

:49:03. > :49:06.issue. We had a debate about that in this House not long ago. I can

:49:07. > :49:10.assure her that the director of the Serious Fraud Office, David Green,

:49:11. > :49:17.who has been doing excellent work since his appointment back in 2012,

:49:18. > :49:23.is satisfied that the funding that his office receives is sufficient

:49:24. > :49:27.for investigations and prosecutions to be carried out. Let's not forget

:49:28. > :49:30.that Blockbuster funding allowed by the Treasury gives them the fitness

:49:31. > :49:36.of food that is needed in order to mount special and unexpected

:49:37. > :49:40.investigations because it is very much in demand led office. I am glad

:49:41. > :49:48.to report that in recent months, the SFO has yielded hundreds of millions

:49:49. > :49:51.of pounds for the Treasury in the form of deferred prosecution

:49:52. > :49:58.agreement is, most notably with Rolls-Royce and most recently with

:49:59. > :50:02.Tesco to name but two. Hyam impressed and pleased with the

:50:03. > :50:08.progress of the SFO since the appointment of David Green and the

:50:09. > :50:14.way it has focused itself upon the criteria that it has to apply and is

:50:15. > :50:18.enjoined to apply by the governing statute that set it up some 30 years

:50:19. > :50:25.ago. Let's remind ourselves of that in the brief time we have, Mr

:50:26. > :50:28.Paisley. The SFO, as I said, is a relatively small but highly

:50:29. > :50:30.specialised departments that is allowed by law to investigate and

:50:31. > :50:35.where appropriate to prosecute cases of serious or complex fraud. That

:50:36. > :50:41.includes cases of domestic or overseas bribery and corruption. The

:50:42. > :50:44.type of fraud that calls for a multidisciplinary approach and the

:50:45. > :50:49.recourse to the legislative powers that are available to the SFO. The

:50:50. > :50:53.criteria of cases except on is very strict. The SFO will consider all

:50:54. > :50:58.circumstances of the case including the following, cases which undermine

:50:59. > :51:01.the United Kingdom's commercial or financial reputation in general and

:51:02. > :51:05.the City of London in particular, cases where the actual or potential

:51:06. > :51:09.loss involved in height, cases were the actual or potential harm is

:51:10. > :51:14.significant, cases where there is a very significant public interest

:51:15. > :51:19.element and finally, new species of fraud. While all frauds are serious

:51:20. > :51:24.matters causing real detriment to those who fall victim to them, it is

:51:25. > :51:31.right to say that those criteria set a high threshold which have has to

:51:32. > :51:35.be applied by the SFO. Dealing with the way with which it works with

:51:36. > :51:40.other agencies, can I reassure the Honourable Lady that the SFO has

:51:41. > :51:43.very constructive, strategic and working relationships with all its

:51:44. > :51:47.law enforcement and regulatory partners? It engages with other

:51:48. > :51:53.agencies whenever relevant throughout the life of a case. Right

:51:54. > :51:56.from the development of that case through to its investigation,

:51:57. > :52:00.prosecution and then recovery of proceeds of crime. These

:52:01. > :52:03.relationships are continually supported through attendance at

:52:04. > :52:09.various cross Government working groups, regular bilateral liaison

:52:10. > :52:12.meetings whether at a signora or operational level, and I are

:52:13. > :52:15.underpinned by memorandums of understanding or operational

:52:16. > :52:20.protocols were necessary. These structures have been evolving over

:52:21. > :52:26.time and particularly have involved since the establishment of the

:52:27. > :52:30.National crime agency's crime command back in 2013. The NCA plays

:52:31. > :52:34.a coordinating role in a structure of governance that applies across

:52:35. > :52:39.all areas of economic crime and indeed the SFO plays its part in all

:52:40. > :52:44.the relevant groups to form that's collective response. There are

:52:45. > :52:49.agreed rules and responsibilities and the S F O, as I have said,

:52:50. > :52:54.investigates a particular species of serious fraud, bribery and

:52:55. > :52:58.corruption cases. At all stages of the assessments, reports of economic

:52:59. > :53:01.crime that have been received by the SFO are indeed under review to

:53:02. > :53:05.establish whether or not the matter falls within its jurisdiction and

:53:06. > :53:10.its remit. If the matter is deemed not to be set high threshold, it is

:53:11. > :53:12.closed and if appropriate consideration is given as to whether

:53:13. > :53:17.another law enforcement or regulatory partner might be in a

:53:18. > :53:20.better position to develop that information. These decisions are

:53:21. > :53:27.made with a clear understanding of the remit of the other law

:53:28. > :53:31.enforcement agencies. And that is underpinned by frequent meetings

:53:32. > :53:35.between members of the SFO's intelligence unit and their part to

:53:36. > :53:40.Leeds counterparts within the National crime agency, DFC eight and

:53:41. > :53:45.the other enforcement and regulatory industries. Why do they meet? In

:53:46. > :53:50.order to avoid the inevitable duplication or conflicts that might

:53:51. > :53:56.occur between reports. It must be clear, Mr Paisley, that only one

:53:57. > :54:01.agency is in the lead on any given issue. We have to appreciate that

:54:02. > :54:04.many referrers, members of the public are others, will approach

:54:05. > :54:10.several agencies with the same issue. Therefore, the need to seek

:54:11. > :54:15.to use each other's expertise and capabilities to make real progress

:54:16. > :54:18.with an investigation and avoid, for want of a better phrase, reinvention

:54:19. > :54:25.of the wheel, is absolutely essential if we are to make proper

:54:26. > :54:29.progress. In particular, regular meetings are held between members of

:54:30. > :54:33.the foreign bribery clearing house. They were foreign dozens of other

:54:34. > :54:41.jurisdictions that of course means Scotland's, where discussions are

:54:42. > :54:46.made with response to the placement of potential investigations with the

:54:47. > :54:50.relevant authority. A sick on the from the SFO will work with the NCA,

:54:51. > :54:58.bribery and corruption the unit, which then helps with this progress

:54:59. > :55:02.by providing direct access to the assets. Operation of that clearing

:55:03. > :55:07.house is governed by a memorandum of understanding that was agreed in

:55:08. > :55:14.2014 and is published on the SFO website. Parties to that and all U R

:55:15. > :55:17.the City of London Police, Crown Office and because observers of

:55:18. > :55:21.Scotland, Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, Financial

:55:22. > :55:25.Conduct Authority, the Ministry of Defence Police, the National crime

:55:26. > :55:29.agency and Serious Fraud Office. It does not end there, Mr Paisley,

:55:30. > :55:33.because that current memorandum of understanding is being looked at

:55:34. > :55:37.again and refreshed in order to ensure that it is as relevant as

:55:38. > :55:43.possible bearing in mind current challenges. There is also an MoUs

:55:44. > :55:47.between the SFO and the Scottish prosecution authority that sets out

:55:48. > :55:52.further rules for coordination and cooperation between the two bodies.

:55:53. > :55:55.While the SFO does not have prosecutorial authority north of the

:55:56. > :56:02.border, it does have investigate Oriel powers when it comes to full

:56:03. > :56:06.advance that could be prosecuted in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

:56:07. > :56:11.therefore the cross-border understanding with the Scottish

:56:12. > :56:17.authorities is vital. These and all yous sets out to tackle bribery in

:56:18. > :56:20.accordance with the agreed rules and responsibilities grid that exists

:56:21. > :56:24.for bribery and corruption cases and they provide a framework for how the

:56:25. > :56:27.agencies will coordinate foreign bribery work. That ensures that all

:56:28. > :56:33.credible allegations of foreign bribery with a connection to the UK

:56:34. > :56:37.are properly assessed. The SFO also takes part in other strategic

:56:38. > :56:41.delivery and working groups, including Project bloom. That

:56:42. > :56:45.relates to pension fraud. It is chaired by the pensions regulator

:56:46. > :56:50.and the panel papers task force announced by the former Prime

:56:51. > :56:54.Minister in April of last year. The SFO is a founding member of the

:56:55. > :57:00.joint financial analytical Centre, the JF ACE, which is a very

:57:01. > :57:06.important part of the Panama paper's task force lolls in July of last

:57:07. > :57:09.year along with HMRC and the Financial Conduct Authority. The SFO

:57:10. > :57:15.has investigated a significant amount of its intelligence resources

:57:16. > :57:18.into that new joint analytical Centre and is, lamented by a

:57:19. > :57:23.dedicated group of officers based within the SFO who managed and

:57:24. > :57:27.developed that resultant intelligence and contribute to the

:57:28. > :57:32.analytical process and the product of that process generated by the

:57:33. > :57:38.joint financial analytical Centre. The SFO also actively takes part in

:57:39. > :57:43.a number of Panama paper 's forums, including the response group which

:57:44. > :57:47.provides a platform to efficiently stroll information and intelligence,

:57:48. > :57:52.high-grade primacy and coordinate joint working. The SFO's commitment

:57:53. > :57:56.to that commitment to Leeds principle of joint working has been

:57:57. > :58:02.of direct benefit of its own investigations along with agreement

:58:03. > :58:09.with HMRC into serious and complex fraud allegations. And therefore, we

:58:10. > :58:15.have this process by which there is a referral mechanism into the JF A/C

:58:16. > :58:24.as well as the F several being part of that centre itself. Of course,

:58:25. > :58:28.the SFO is the Leeds does not have police and evidence acts of its own.

:58:29. > :58:32.It carries out arrests with the help of police forces and worked with

:58:33. > :58:37.them collaboratively where appropriate throughout

:58:38. > :58:43.investigations. In other words, that sense of symbiosis is very much a

:58:44. > :58:46.part of the way in which the SFO operates together with other

:58:47. > :58:51.organisations. I take very much on board what the Honourable lady said

:58:52. > :58:55.about the need to further refine and improve that process. I can assure

:58:56. > :59:01.her that with each year that passes, that is precisely what is happening.

:59:02. > :59:09.If there are lessons to be learned from previous failures or omissions,

:59:10. > :59:11.they are learned and used to refine existing memorandums of

:59:12. > :59:15.understanding and existing partnership working to ensure that

:59:16. > :59:20.there is as seamless as possible a response to economic crime. Much to

:59:21. > :59:26.be done, much achieved, but as I accept the spirit of promotion, more

:59:27. > :59:30.to do. Thank you. The question is that the House is considered the

:59:31. > :59:33.relationship between the Serious Fraud Office and other agencies. As

:59:34. > :59:39.many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The

:59:40. > :59:51.ayes have it. Order, order. Sitting suspended.