Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady should be aware that last Tuesday there was a jobs fair in her constituency. There were 59 exhibitors, and 900 customers attended the event. They provided fantastic feedback on the support and interventions given. If she did not attend that particular jobs fair, she might want to go to “March into manufacturing” on 21 March, an upcoming jobs fair in her patch.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

We started the sitting with a non-party political point, so may I continue in that mode? I absolutely agree that those on the Opposition Benches want to reduce the level of unemployment. Unfortunately, their policies do not follow. Does the Minister agree that every single Labour Government have left unemployment higher than when they came to office?

[Guy Opperman]

Yes.

DWP Estate: Office Closures

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

We are absolutely committed to bringing forward more jobs. Jobs are being filled and employment is at a record high. We have vacancies. It is important to highlight that the number of front-of-house roles that we are fulfilling has increased significantly. We have taken forward a rapid estate expansion programme over the past two years. We have created 170 new Jobcentre Plus offices. Many colleagues across the House will be beneficiaries of that along with their constituents. By the end of March, that increase will be up to 194, so there will be 831 Jobcentre Plus offices, which is a huge, huge investment. There will also be an increase in work coaches, which will be a real benefit to our customers. As I have said, the roles that we are talking about are back of house. An equality impact assessment has been made—I do not think that I mentioned that earlier. On the impact on communities, on the whole, this will involve a relatively small number of colleagues in particular communities. We want to make sure that we support those people back into work. For the vast majority, there are jobs close by, and we will help them to transition into those areas. For those who do not have jobs close by, we will give them the support that they need.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on this urgent question, though I feel this should perhaps have been offered as a statement. What I cannot quite understand is that the Minister is saying that no Jobcentre Plus offices are closing, but the shadow Minister says offices are closing. Which is correct, and does it affect anything in my area? This is all new to me.

[David Rutley]

To be clear, this relates to back-of-house offices that are often in our local communities. We are trying to update our estates, some of which are no longer fit for purpose, and to bring together colleagues with the right levels of experience to create clusters that will help the provision of back-of-house facilities and services. I want to be clear again—I am sorry if I was not clear earlier—that this does not affect front-of-house Jobcentre Plus. By the end of March we will have invested in an extra 194 of those facilities. We have increased the number of people who work in our Department and, as I said, we want to look after the people affected by these back-of-house changes. Hopefully that is clear to my hon. Friend.

Covid-19: DWP Update

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we were trying to make a short-term increase, we went through with the Treasury how we could do this quickly, and the quickest ways were by increasing the local housing allowance and UC, rather than other benefits, as I have mentioned. On the situation in London, I am conscious that aspects of the housing benefit regulations went through a month ago, but not all councils have applied them. What we have done with the thresholds means that people in London should be able to see an increase in the amount of money they get in housing support, but otherwise it is not the Government’s intention to change the current threshold of the benefit cap.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

I wish to follow on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) about directors of small companies. The Government have done very well to protect people on PAYE and people who are self-employed, but directors of small companies fall through the cracks and it really is not good enough just to say, “They can fall back on universal credit”, because in many cases they will not qualify and because we have protected other sectors. We must do better, and we must sort out how we are going to protect the directors of small companies.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend will know, having been an accountant, that a variety of people will potentially receive dividends from a company, and it is not currently possible for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to know whether somebody has given this to themselves in lieu of a salary or whether it is a payment to an investor. It is a different situation where people have chosen to finance their income from the business in that way, and he will be aware that the rate of tax on paying dividends is 7.5%, once someone goes above the dividends allowance. How people who are self-employed through a normal PAYE scheme would pay aspects of national insurance and tax directly is quite different. The Treasury, in devising the scheme, has sought to try to identify as many people as possible it could help, and achieving that for 95% of self-employed people is a pretty good outcome.

State Pension: Women born in the 1950s

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Before we begin this important debate, it might help Members to know that the Prime Minister will make a statement in the House at 3 o’clock. If Members wish to speak in this debate they must return for the wind-ups, which will start at approximately 4 o’clock. Nine Back Benchers have indicated that they wish to speak. I do not intend to impose a time limit.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Bone. I am sorry to interrupt proceedings before they have really started. Thank you for your guidance, although I am not one of the Members who will speak; I am unable to because of other engagements. Could the debate be relayed to another room, so that the many people who cannot get into the Strangers Gallery can listen to it? They have come here for that, and are currently excluded. It would be kind to let them hear it.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Thank you for that important point of order. I entirely understand the frustration. I do not schedule debates. The debate could have been scheduled in the House where there would have been enough room for everyone. However, rather than postponing or stopping it, I think we should continue. It may help people to know that when debates happen in Westminster Hall a similar one often happens in the House at a later date. We should crack on with today’s important debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Yes, I will.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way, let me say that I am grateful to him for making brief remarks, which have gone on for more than 12 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I look to you, Chair, to know whether I am entitled to take any more interventions.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to go on for as long as he wants, but I would prefer him not to.

[Alex Burghart]

That makes two of us, Mr Bone.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran did not talk much about the cost of reversing Government policy, which is a shame. I understand that the SNP has costed the reversal of the Pensions Act 2011 at £8 billion, but other experts see that as a vast underestimate. It would actually cost the taxpayer £30 billion or more. There is no doubt that the Scotland Act 2016 gives the Scottish Government the powers that they need to address the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman asked that question, because this was totally misreported in The Times today; we are not going to close down any organisation at all that is supporting disabled people into work. I have been in ongoing discussions with the sector to make sure not only that we have the existing scheme, but that it is enhanced and mainstreamed into a new, improved programme.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I ask the relevant Minister whether I have got this clear, because I thought that this understanding was given to Parliament: where someone appeals against the loss of their personal independence payment, their Motability car will not be taken away from them until the decision is made by the independent tribunal? Have I got that right?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. If somebody has appealed their PIP decision, they can keep their car.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The short answer is that I have received no indication as yet that any Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement on that matter, although it is of course open to colleagues to request such.

I should say the following in these relatively unusual—not unprecedented, but relatively unusual—circumstances. There is nothing disorderly about a recorded vote of the House in which there are no Members recorded as voting no. Members who shout “No” when the question is first put must not vote aye, but they are not and cannot be obliged to vote no. As Standing Order No. 39 states:

“A Member is not obliged to vote.”

A Division requires two Tellers on either side and that was the case.

I should add as follows. A resolution of the House of Commons is just that: an expression of the view of the nation’s elected representatives in the House of Commons. This is important and Members need to hear this part of what I have to say. Constitutionally, from my own experience but based also on procedural advice, and as clearly as what I said a few moments ago, the House cannot direct Ministers. It is for Ministers in the Government to decide how to respond to the clearly expressed view of the House. I feel confident that they will do so, bearing in mind the mood of the House expressed in the urgent debate, which I allowed just two weeks ago, on the need for Government respect for the proceedings of the House.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Just a slight correction, of course: the Government did not vote against the motion and so could not possibly have lost it. It might be that the Labour deputy Chief Whip will have to be sacked for rebelling against the Labour party line. On a serious point, Sir, would you agree that it would be helpful if there was a convention in the House that where a substantive motion is passed the Government should come to the House, within a reasonable time, and make a statement about what they intend to do about it?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My response is twofold. First, I do not cavil—I have known him a long time—but I have not been corrected. I have been corrected many times in my life—I make no complaint about that—but I require no correction on this occasion. [Interruption.] Oh, there is a suggestion that somebody else was being corrected. Well, I will not get into that nether region.

Child Maintenance Service

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

We start with a debate on the Child Maintenance Service. It is good to see so much media interest in this today at Westminster.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Child Maintenance Service.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss this extremely important issue affecting families across the UK. I would also like to extend my thanks to my colleagues present, who may have had to cut short their Easter weekend to attend today. The fact that they are present highlights the importance of this debate.

Many constituents have approached my office regarding issues with the Child Maintenance Service. In their experience and mine, it is an extremely frustrating and inefficient service to deal with. When it is responsible for something as important as financial support for children, and quite often single-parent families, it must execute its duties properly and get it right. That is not happening.

The Child Maintenance Service is under-resourced, unfit for purpose and failing families across the UK. It has disregarded historical maintenance arrears. It allows non-resident parents to renege on their responsibilities by failing to collect current maintenance, and it imposes a tax on parents who desperately require its services. It fails to provide a service of the decent standard that should be expected of any Government agency.

Despite the length of time I get to speak, when writing this speech I was not thinking about which issues to speak about; I was thinking about what things I would have to leave out, as the maintenance system is so rife with issues. The CMS needs a radical overhaul to ensure that parents and their children can access the support they are entitled to. That support is not optional.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, that is at the heart of what I am trying to get across today. This system is not working, and the bottom line is that children are suffering because of it.

Both parents and my staff have raised concerns about the difficulty of making a complaint. The new system makes the first complaint an “inquiry” rather than a complaint. Parents and even my staff have to be persistent in escalating their issue to a complaint to have it properly investigated. I understand that the CMS cannot utilise the enforcement actions available to it without proper cause. However, I have had through my door numerous constituents who have not received full and proper payments from their ex-partners. Despite that evidence having been shown to the CMS, there is a severe lack of urgency. Parents are required to jump through hoops to get any sort of action taken and to fight their case. That demonstrates the lack of understanding of how important it is for parents with care to receive full and timely payments. It has also contributed to a culture of non-payment, which leads to ironically named “paying parents” not paying at all.

Without wishing to sound dramatic, I believe that the Child Maintenance Service should strike fear into the hearts of parents not making their proper contributions. If the CMS took more seriously its duties to pursue maintenance, parents would perhaps not be allowed to make incomplete, late or non-payments. The UK Government have sanctioned benefit claimants and clawed back supposed overpayments. I would like to see them take an equally enthusiastic approach in ensuring that “paying parents” actually pay.

In addition, parents must pay the maintenance that reflects their income. A major difference between the CSA and the CMS is that parents cannot claim for a variation on the grounds of a “notional income” if parents have assets of more than £65,000 or a lifestyle inconsistent with their stated income. That has removed a vital option whereby parents with care can challenge their ex-partners’ claims.

Furthermore, non-PAYE income such as dividends and rental income is not automatically taken into account when calculating maintenance. I have constituents who know that their ex-partner is earning large sums from rental income, for example, but that is not taken into account, allowing parents to minimise their maintenance payments at the expense of their children. We have to see the CMS take action against non-payment, and a change in the rules is required to ensure that maintenance calculations reflect incomes and that, in particular, wealthier parents with assets support their children.

A closer relationship with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would be welcomed, especially regarding data sharing. A bolstering of the financial investigation unit would also be welcomed. That would ensure thorough investigations into those who are self-employed or have complex financial arrangements, so that they pay the right maintenance. It is not enough simply to add to parents’ arrears; action must be taken to collect the money.

The Child Maintenance Service is at crisis point. So long as that continues, we are allowing parents to avoid their responsibilities to their children. It is a common misconception that it is the receiving parent who is losing out if a paying parent fails to make proper payments, but it is the children who are paying the price. Proper receipts of child maintenance have been shown to lift one in five families out of poverty. If the UK Government do not take proper action to secure children their rights, they will be allowing that to happen. The risk of poverty for children in single-parent households is almost double that for children in a household with two parents. Child maintenance is therefore a vital source of income for those families. Some single parents are working themselves to exhaustion to provide for their children while non-resident parents and the Child Maintenance Service allow them to. The Minister must publish the new maintenance collection strategy with set targets for collection; a dedicated enforcement team focused on arrears collection and the collection of current maintenance; and greater use of enforcement powers.

Before the process of coming under the child maintenance system, a parent must pay a £20 charge, and when they come under collect and pay, receiving parents are taxed 4% of their payments. Responses from Ministers have revealed that that is to raise money to fund the maintenance service and to encourage parents to make family-based arrangements—arrangements between themselves—rather than having an application to the CMS as the default option.

When I tabled a question asking what percentage of those who applied to the CMS were parents with care and what percentage were non-resident parents, I was dismayed to find that those figures were not available. It makes sense to assume that the vast majority of people who make the initial application are parents with care. Many of those parents will be applying to the CMS out of necessity; they will pay the £20 application fee and be taxed at 4% of the maintenance that is collected simply for accessing their rights.

Of those who applied to the CSA, one third had already had a failed family-based arrangement. Although charges may encourage some parents to make family-based arrangements, they can also deter people from going into the child maintenance system in general, leaving them entirely without assistance or recourse. That is particularly true for people on low incomes, who require support the most. Two fifths of receiving parents on direct pay said that they found the application fee difficult to afford; so, too, did half of those on very low incomes. One quarter of receiving parents who moved from direct pay to collect and pay said that they found the 4% collection fee difficult to afford also. Astonishingly, 16% of parents with an FBA said that being unable to afford the fees was one reason why they did not apply to the CMS. Instead of supporting families, charges are taking money out of parents’ pockets, food out of children’s mouths and clothes off their backs—through no fault of their own and all for simply accessing their rights.

Pushing parents out of the maintenance system can leave them without any money at all. Some 29% of former CSA parents with care said that the application fee was a factor in not having an arrangement, and the 4% collection charge influenced 24% of those same parents. The charges are actively deterring people from seeking any assistance at all when they most need it.

One group in particular requires special attention and sensitivity: parents who have been the victims of domestic abuse or violence. Of those who applied to the CSA, half had experienced violence or abuse at the hands of an ex-partner—a substantial group, which must be considered with great care. After a year, about a fifth of receiving parents whose direct pay arrangements had broken down or had not even started said that domestic violence was a factor. In addition, 22% of receiving parents said that domestic violence made it difficult to set up a direct pay arrangement. That shows that so many such parents need maintenance services and need them to be effective. I appreciate that the Government have removed the £20 application fee for these parents; however, the same understanding and approach must be implemented in relation to the 4% collection charge. Those parents cannot be expected to interact in any shape or form with their abusive ex-partners. For most parents, the Child Maintenance Service should not be a default starting point but for such parents it absolutely should. Taking simple steps such as allowing for anonymised direct pay could protect those victims. When we consider that many parents on low incomes are deterred by charges, forcing those parents to deal with their ex-partners to save money is a danger to their security and wellbeing, and often, I should add, to the children involved as well. Some parents end up not reporting unpaid maintenance out of fear of reprised attacks or worsened relations. Those parents deserve to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect, and the Government must therefore make urgent provision for that.

Charges can be a barrier for parents and their children. While I believe that parents should seek a FBA if possible, we should not exclude those who have tried and failed. While I appreciate the Government’s need to fund the service, they should not penalise children. In a worst case scenario, the 4% charge should be added on to the 20% charge that non-resident parents incur under collect and pay—they should pay the price for non-compliance, not their children, especially if it can be proven that a FBA is not working or that the paying parent is not making the contributions that they should.

Gingerbread recommends that a means test also be implemented to ensure that those who most need the service are not deterred by the £20 application charge. Taxing children and parents, many of whom apply to the CMS out of necessity because of low incomes or domestic abuse, is not just. They have a legal right to this support, and the Government should not be skimming off the top of what can be a vital lifeline. We must therefore see an end to the 4% tax on maintenance.

I do not want to portray all paying parents as villains. Many pay support for their children both inside and outside of the maintenance service, but the CMS system also penalises them. It is an imperfect system for either parent. Implementing a 25% threshold on a change in income on paying parents can leave many lower income parents struggling, and allow higher income parents to retain more money that could be used for supporting their children. I agree that having the threshold provides payment stability and ensures that the CMS does not incur large administration costs for changes in income; however, it must be set at a level that ensures a more accurate reflection of parents’ incomes—the 25% rule must be looked at. CMS staff have also indicated to Gingerbread that there has been reluctance to move cases from direct pay to collect and pay because of the high 20% charge. Staff therefore need to utilise other enforcement measures to ensure proper payment. There must be a review of those charges to encourage staff to move cases to collect and pay if need be, and not to be deterred by placing higher charges on the payments of non-resident parents.

Both groups of parents will undoubtedly have had major issues with actually dealing with the Child Maintenance Service. That is one complaint that every parent who comes to my office has in common. The main complaint is that they are passed from pillar to post and every time they call the CMS they are given a new caseworker who has no previous knowledge of their case, requiring the calling parent to provide lengthy explanations of often complex arrangements within a complex system. Staff often provide parents with conflicting information depending on the call handler. One caseworker told a staff member from my office that due to a lack of resources, oral responses were given rather than written responses. That often leads to contradictory information being given to parents by different caseworkers. My staff have said that it is even difficult for MPs’ staff to receive a written response from the Child Maintenance Service. In one instance, it caused one of my constituents to accrue thousands of pounds worth of debts. He was not notified of that over the phone and was only informed in writing several months down the line. However, when letters are sent, and they still are, they can be misleading. The most ridiculous issue brought to my office was when a constituent received a letter outlining his maintenance for his three children. Imagine his surprise—or horror, rather—considering he had only ever fathered two children.

I have already outlined how receiving parents lack awareness as to what options are open to them to pursue maintenance, and that staff are reluctant to enforce action. However, parents who are aware have reported to Gingerbread and my office that they feel they constantly have to pursue the CMS to pursue their ex-partner. Rather than a game of cat and mouse, this is a game of dog, cat and mouse. When we look at how much is spent in total each year on the collection of child maintenance, that is not surprising. From 2013-14 to the forecasted projected spending for 2016-17, the total spent on the CSA and the CMS has decreased by 21%. That reflects what has been heard from staff—that the service is underfunded and unable to deal with its workload properly. As a result of poor customer service, satisfaction rates among both groups of parents have dropped significantly over the years.

“Dissatisfied” would perhaps be an understatement for how people feel about the Child Maintenance Service. Both groups of parents are suffering from the CMS’s administrative and operational inefficiency, which makes any dealings with it unbearable. Complaints are not taken seriously and communication on rights and actions is almost non-existent. I welcome the Government’s reviews, but the CMS is rife with problems, requiring a radical overhaul of how it operates.

With £4 billion of uncollected maintenance, and parents being allowed to renege on their current liabilities, the Child Maintenance Service is failing parents and children. Yes, implementing arrangements to deter and minimise non-compliance are welcome, so long as they do not deter parents with care. What is inescapable, however, is that the best way to secure for children their legal rights is for the Child Maintenance Service to get in there and secure those rights for them.

The Government need to take steps to strengthen enforcement teams to enforce payments and forge a closer relationship with HMRC to see parents’ actual incomes accounted for in maintenance calculations. The UK Government have taken an approach to welfare that promotes self-reliance while shrinking the welfare state. What better way to ensure self-reliance than to ensure that parents pay to support their children? If those children are not the responsibility of the state, they are the responsibility of their parents, who must pay their contributions.

The system of charges needs urgent reform. It is unacceptable for parents who turn to the CMS out of nothing other than necessity to be taxed for doing so. Children should not lose out on a single penny or pound—or shilling, in my memory—due to their parents’ non-compliance. Implementing reforms to abolish charges and collect maintenance properly would benefit parents with care by allowing them to receive maintenance in full and on time, and also provide a lifeline to lift low-income families out of poverty.

A culture of non-payment has developed. Parents are failing to make full and timely payments, because the Child Maintenance Service and the UK Government are allowing them to. As Gingerbread says, children living in single-parent families are at almost twice as much risk of poverty as children in coupled families. The UK Government should protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse, not punish them financially for their inability to engage with their abusive ex-partners. It is clear that the UK Government remain wedded to austerity, in stark contrast with the Scottish Government’s determination to create an inclusive, equal Scotland.

I call on the Minister to follow up on the Gingerbread recommendations. I will not go through them again, but they are easy to access, and there are not a lot of them. They would make a huge difference to parents with care and, more especially, to children. The CMS is insufficient, inefficient and incapable. Our children deserve better.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Three Back-Bench Members are trying to catch my eye. The Front-Bench speakers cannot start the winding-up speeches later than 12.30.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is the children who are vulnerable. In many cases it is the mother, too, and on the odd occasion it is the father—it depends on the issues—but the focus of our attention should be on the children, as it is in this debate.

Gingerbread referred to

“new debts piling up in the new system worth an average of £668 per family.”

That is a huge amount of money to a single-parent family; it could be the uniform or the lunch money. There must be a way of getting that money paid or the matter addressed. Gingerbread also notes that

“almost £4bn of unpaid maintenance arrears has accumulated over the 23-year lifespan of the Child Support Agency…which is in the process of being shut down and replaced by its successor, the Child Maintenance Service”.

We hope that the CMS will learn from the mistakes of the CSA and deliver a better system. I look to the Minister to explain how such a better system will be unveiled and how it will ensure that parents and children get their money when they should. However, the Government estimate that only 12% of that amount is ever likely to be recovered. Although I may look to the Minister for a positive response and for guidance, I am well aware that the Government have already stated that they will not get all the money anyway—they have almost drawn a line in the sand and said, “We can’t do it.” I have to say that that is very disappointing.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who is no longer in her place, referred in an intervention to the staff. Although the administration of the system is devolved, the rules, regulations and laws on the CSA and the CMS are decreed by Westminster. Staff are moved about all the time. In all my years of dealing with child maintenance issues, I cannot remember ever speaking to the same person twice about the same issue. More often than not, people phone up and say, “They said they would phone me back, but they didn’t.” How many times have I heard that? It is unbelievable how often staff move about and that happens.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) referred to cases in which a father moves job and becomes self-employed. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of cases in which a father in a very comfortable position, earning big money, has said to his wife and two children, “I am not going to be self-employed any more—I am going to go and live with my dad,” and has run away from his responsibility for maintenance. I believe that is wrong. There are others who go on the dole or who take up a job as a taxi driver—I have nothing against taxi drivers, but their earnings are all cash in hand and they can declare their own figure after their expenses. We need to look at this.

There are also delays in the system. I am now in direct contact with the manager of the system in Northern Ireland. To be fair, contacting him seems to initiate a response, but what about all the other people who are not MPs? What about the mother who is at her wits’ end because she does not have the money to look after her children? I expect—as you and other hon. Members would, Mr Bone—the same response to mothers like her as there is to us.

Gingerbread has found that

“evidence suggests that decreasing effort is being put by the government into collecting more than £700m of arrears on existing cases…Meanwhile, within the new CMS, a new system of incentives and penalties was intended to prevent arrears arising in the first place. Yet, after almost two-and-a-half-years of full operation, £52.5m has accumulated in CMS maintenance arrears, with almost half of all non-resident parents in the system having some child maintenance debt. And these figures will increase as cases are gradually transferred across from the old system.”

I have also seen cases of parents—I have to say that in all cases they were fathers—who have moved out of the country and got a job abroad. I wonder how we can chase up non-residents of the United Kingdom.

I echo the cry of Gingerbread’s former chief executive Fiona Weir, who said in June:

“Britain’s child maintenance system is contributing to a culture where too many parents think it’s optional, rather than obligatory, to pay their child’s maintenance…The accumulated level of CSA arrears is staggering and completely unacceptable. With analysis showing that one-in-five families are lifted out of poverty by child maintenance payments, this is vital money that parents, and their children, can’t do without.”

She clearly outlined the issue and where we are on it. She went on to say:

“And with the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculating that poverty rates for single parent families will double by 2020”—

therefore, the situation will get worse—

“more than ever that child maintenance owed for children needs to be collected by the Government.”

We look to the Minister and the Government to see how best they can do that.

There are also parents who are separated or divorced who come to a financial arrangement, which is an agreement by the two people. It is quite a good system, because by and large they come to a financial arrangement that is equal to what the CSA or the CMS would have arranged. However, I am frustrated, because sometimes the CSA—or, now, the CMS—will pursue those making financial arrangements to see if they can get more out of them. They almost look at them as easy targets and I find that most frustrating.

This issue is continually raised in my office. Just last week, I had a father in my office who has children from a previous relationship. His ex is in a better job than he is and is much better off financially. He has not run away from his obligations to support his children, but there must be a financial equation that is fair and realistic, and that enables everyone to do what they have to do. Fewer than half the eligible families receive child maintenance, an estimated 70% of closed CSA cases involve outstanding arrears, and £52.5 million is already owed under the CMS system.

Communication is also vital. Whenever a lady phones up looking for her CSA payments, I expect the Department to phone her back, so we must initiate a better system, because communication is so important. In the life that we live as MPs in this House, communication—how we relate to and respond to our constituents—is so much of our bread and butter.

I am conscious of the time, so I will finish with this. There are failures that are clear, and these must be addressed, so we must look at the rules, regulations and guidelines that come out of Westminster and consider how we can change them so that the system can work better, whether in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England. I look to the Minister for assurance that these past debts will be actively sought and that changes will be made to prevent that situation from continuing. With that in mind, we must do better than collecting just 12%.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Before I call the last Back Bencher, which will be David Burrowes, let me say that I will now start the wind-ups at 12.33 pm, because this is a Backbench Business Committee debate and we want to make sure that Back Benchers have a chance to speak in it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have commissioned Matthew Taylor to review the rights and protections available to self-employed workers. He asked what we have already done. The self-employed now have access to the new state pension, worth an extra £1,800 a year in retirement. We have doubled the amount of free childcare, which is particularly useful for the self-employed and worth up to £5,000 per child per year. We have also increased the personal allowance, worth £1,000, to the typical basic rate taxpayer.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right: we have definitely helped the self-employed. However, it was put to me at my listening campaign this weekend by self-employed people that they actually want the Government out of their business. They do not want to pay higher taxes, and they do not want more benefits; they just want to get on with their business. Is that something the Secretary of State could support?

[Damian Green]

I do, and the Government, of course, support that more widely. We are looking all the time at regulations that might hinder the growth of entrepreneurship and self-employment. The actions taken by my Department—for instance, the new enterprise allowance—actively encourage people into self-employment. Some 96,000 new businesses have been set up as a result of the NEA.

Personal Independence Payments

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There are people on both sides who are chuntering from a sedentary position, which is certainly not something I ever remember doing myself when I was on the Back Benches.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I remember that you sat next to me on those Benches, Mr Speaker.

We have an excellent Secretary of State, probably one of the most caring in the Government, and I am sure that what the Government are doing is correct. As the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said, however, Members have the opportunity today to highlight the fact that the process of assessment is not working for a number of our constituents. I am fed up with seeing every week a constituent who clearly should have been awarded PIP but is not getting it. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more on how we are going to improve that situation?

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and indeed for your remarks, Mr Speaker, about the fact that you never chuntered from the Back Benches. This means that I will be able to correct my own memory of those circumstances, having sat next to you on the Back Benches for many years as well.

We are obviously trying to improve all aspects of the PIP process—the accuracy and the speed of the assessments—and, as I have said, the early provision of more objective health information will improve the situation hugely, not least for my hon. Friend’s constituents and others who find the process stressful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

We are very mindful of our duties under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and we do indeed carry out the equality impact assessments that the hon. Lady mentions. She and I have had a chance to talk about the specific jobcentre. What we are doing is making sure that we have a good spread of jobcentres across the country that are accessible to the people who need to use them, but also utilising space better.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Last week, I visited a number of successful factories in my constituency that were taking on additional employment. Does the Secretary of State agree that our long-term economic plan has worked and that the Opposition Members who opposed it should now be contrite? Does he also agree with me that it is rather surprising that until two minutes ago there has not been a single Liberal Democrat Member in the Chamber?

[Damian Green]

I am not remotely surprised—