Iain Duncan Smith Firm On Planned CSA Charges, Saying They're 'Better For The Children'

Ids Csa Charges Welfare Reform Bill

The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 29/01/2012 10:11 Updated: 29/01/2012 10:15

Iain Duncan Smith has pledged to overturn the House of Lords' amendments to his Welfare Reform Bill, including the vote to cancel charges for single parents to use the Child Support Agency (CSA).

On Wednesday peers delivered their largest-ever defeat on the coalition by voting by a majority of 142 to cancel plans to introduce CSA charges. The amendment was tabled by Lord Mackay, a Conservative peer, and backed by many former Tory ministers including Lord Howe and Lord Lawson.

But the work and pensions secretary told Andrew Marr on Sunday morning that the current system led to parents being "almost forced to be at each other's throats," arguing that the charges would lead to disputes over child maintenance being settled out of courts more often.

"If you have a relatively small charge, what happens is that people will think about it," said Duncan Smith, insisting that the proposals would be "better for the children."

On Wednesday MPs will consider all the amendments made by the Lords to the Welfare Reform Bill, and the secretary of state confirmed that coalition MPs would be whipped into overturning them. Most of the amendments were passed by relatively small margins, but the CSA amendment was overwhelmingly passed. This raises the prospect of "parliamentary ping-pong" taking place between the two houses in the coming days.

On the CSA charges, IDS claimed: "We want to make sure that this is a balance. We're not asking for much, It's only about 9%. We're going to pick up the lion share of the cost."

He was particularly bullish on the planned benefit cap of £26,000 per household. An amendment by peers would make child benefit exempt from this calculation, but IDS insisted it would also be overturned.

"Even among Labour and Liberal voters... it's overwhelmingly popular," he said. "Why should someone on benefits earn more than the average wage?

"We have people living in London that cost over £100,000 a year to rent... that's the kind of nonsense that we've got into."

The government has a majority of more than 80 in the House of Commons, but lacks a concrete majority in the Lords. In the unelected chamber it requires the support of at least some of the independent cross-bench MPs.

Nick Clegg wants to replace the Lords with a mostly elected chamber, although the Bishops which introduced one of the amendements last week would be retained under the deputy prime minister's draft proposals.

If the Commons and the Lords cannot agree, there will be a state of "ping-pong" when the Lords will be urged to accept the will of the elected lower chamber. The government may use the Parliament Act - the equivalent of a veto by the Commons, if there is no agreement, but that could delay Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reforms for months.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

Iain Duncan Smith has pledged to overturn the House of Lords' amendments to his Welfare Reform Bill, including the vote to cancel charges for single parents to use the Child Support Agency (CSA). ...
Iain Duncan Smith has pledged to overturn the House of Lords' amendments to his Welfare Reform Bill, including the vote to cancel charges for single parents to use the Child Support Agency (CSA). ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 86
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
06:30 PM on 02/06/2012
Can anyone answer this : What is the annual bill for the "House of Lords"? and Why are there more Lords than elected MP's?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dombeyandson
06:17 AM on 01/30/2012
Even among Labour and Liberal voters... it's overwhelmingly popular," he said. "Why should someone on benefits earn more than the average wage?

"We have people living in London that cost over £100,000 a year to rent... that's the kind of nonsense that we've got into."
IDS you were useless as leader of the Cons and you are equally useless today. What Council pays £100,000 per year in rent to anyone? Your flagship Wandsworth certainly don't - You're making it up as you go along. You're letting your immagination run wild. And who sold off the council property to gain votes - THATCHER -and who refused to put the money received into building more hosuing stock - THATCHER - and who is paying your £100,000 per annum in wages WE ARE THE TAXPAYER plus all those extrotionate and outrageous expense claims to support your family and second home. You were elected [why?] to represnet the peoples interests and to improve their lot not make it 100 times worse. You don't make anything, you don't produce anything and you don't contribute anything to making our society fair, reasonable and just
10:12 PM on 01/29/2012
Everytime I see any member of this governments so called leadership my stomach turns. And I feel murderous.

Are these people completely ignorant and out of touch or are they simply sociopathic? It has to be one or the other.

The NHS, welfare reform and now suggesting that charging for services of the CSA is good for the children? Are these people insane - because they are sending me insane.

Will no one rid us of this turbulent 'beast'!!!
06:02 PM on 01/29/2012
Its about time they got rid of the House Of Lords the most of them are past there sell by date and most of them are asleep in the nice warm place I'm sure its costing the people of this country megga amounts to pay for it all they must have very sad lives if all of them want to spend there retirement years in the house or is there plenty of free food and drink to be had . most of them are megga rich anyway have they not realised yet that theres no pockets in shrouds?? and of course they get paid for being there.......
12:21 AM on 01/30/2012
Well at least somebody agrees with IDS's reforms!
05:24 PM on 01/29/2012
Just reading some of the comments below and isnt ignorance bliss! yet again media stiring a frenzy so people blame the underdogs of this country for the state that its in. Instead of blaming the people living in poverty already how about taking some money back from the goverments over inflated pay packet and taking a look at bankers. It looks a lot when they 26k that is because familys are being forced to rent over inflated private rent propertys which are often in substandard condition and over crowded (Due to a lack of local authority housing) plus the cost of council tax once this is deducted from the 26k mentioned they are left living on the bread line. All the cap will do is force familys to live on next to nothing in order to pay rent for these unfit propertys or leave them unable to pay the rent leaving more familys homeless.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Allyb999
06:42 PM on 01/29/2012
But what about the poor hardworking tax payer that does not make 26K after taxes, to allow this people to claim that amount of benefits?
06:57 PM on 01/29/2012
Hi Allyb999 I have worked in welfare rights and trust me there are very few people out there claiming 26k from DWP! its media hyp a lone parent can only claim £67.50 per week and child tax credit for the child, who have debts at the end of the month as it doesnt cover the bills not a bank account full of money. I agree there are some bad people out there who are playing the system but trust me there are thousands out there just trying to survive and applying for every job they can. And as a hard working tax payer you are paying in just in case you fall on hard times your self and god forbid it takes you a few months or longer to find a new job? many of the people commenting on here need to stop and think there are a lot of redundancy­s at the moment plus the pressure and worry about money causing relationsh­ips to break down resulting in divorce lets hope that they see through this and quickly because each and every one of us could end up being unemployed or divorced with a family to support and no affordable housing available. I would like to hear there views this time next year.
07:20 PM on 01/29/2012
just worked it out for you based on a single person claiming job seekers allowance which is based on the amount of 67.50 a week and the figure came to £3,240 a year obviously that would not include council tax or housing benefit but a rough estimate for housing benifit would be lets say base it on a property at 400 per calander month( which is very cheap for private rent one bed flat in very bad condition) And they wouldnt pay the full 400 for a lone occupant but for arguments sake lets just say they would it would work out at £4,800 a year which the claimant never sees as it goes straight to a private landlord and as I say housing benifit would not cover the full amount and the rest would be taken from JSA job seekers allowance so I would like to know where they get the 26G from and which house hold its based on and what they are claiming?
05:19 PM on 01/29/2012
so.... you can only live in London if you are working and earning enough to pay the enourmous rents. I am wondering who will do all the jobs that high earners don't enjoy, cleaning, road sweeping, refuse collection etc, without assistance from housing benefit or social housing (not many of these left anywhere, even in the north), I don't know who can afford it. Oh, I know, the rich bankers, MP's who can claim an allowance to cover it - will be able to afford for someone to 'live in', we going back to Victorian times.
03:38 PM on 01/29/2012
I agree...cap benefits, cap child benefit so people aren't encouraged to have loads of children but also cap MPs pay and expenses, cap the number of MPs in the commons. Cap the number of peers claiming a daily allowance in the Lord, sometimes just being paid for turning up and falling asleep on the comfy leather benches.
Also cap the number of councillors and their excessive expense accounts.
Finally cap banker's bonuses until they have paid back the money they owe the taxpayer.
03:48 PM on 01/29/2012
could not have put it better and then again pigs might fly
03:49 PM on 01/29/2012
There should be more taxpayers money available for the IMF after all those capping.
03:31 PM on 01/29/2012
If IDS is capping Benefits, would he cap Council tax and housing rent as well as this 2 take a whole chunk out of benefits which don't go to the claimants as they like to project.
03:29 PM on 01/29/2012
i agree the cap should be set i do think the c s a should be left they sorted my wife out people shout about the c s a are normally on the recieving end they have taken weight off the courts alone if you can not aford to live in cental london then move out i live on disability benifit that is not 26000 per month my children do not live in poverty the lords need to live in 2011
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mickbono
huff is crap
03:28 PM on 01/29/2012
huff where has my comment gone again
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
03:38 PM on 01/29/2012
They go, we know not where. It happens to me from time to time. Ignore!
03:22 PM on 01/29/2012
Benefits should be capped. However all this talk from IDS is just that - all talk. Politicians only say what they want people to hear, then sit back and do nothing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norman Mitchison
03:14 PM on 01/29/2012
Get rid of the CSA, its useless and doesnt serve anybodys purpose except its own.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
03:39 PM on 01/29/2012
Unfit for purpose from the very start.
03:53 PM on 01/29/2012
what do you suggest loads of free condoms or knickers that cant be pulled down
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
03:58 PM on 01/29/2012
What I suggest is, don't be crude!
05:24 PM on 01/29/2012
naah, just a way to stop fathers doing a disappearing act and not paying their way. CSA was introduced by the government at the time to find these losers. The result would be that the mother would get the money from the father, her benefit would be cut accordingly and thus saved the tax payer money. I don't really think it was ever and option for anyone other than benefit claimants, if we pay them so little they will never be able to afford to use the CSA, so we just continue paying their benefits, fathers continue to keep all of the wages they earn.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cynic123
03:00 PM on 01/29/2012
Child benifit for one child only. Not married or living together then no benifit. Symple, The benifit was started so has to incurage family's to have more than one child after the war. Now it's done we have too many children we need to pay family's more for having none or one child. Those who choose to have loads of kids need to keep them their selves.
09:27 PM on 01/29/2012
and there was I thinking that Child benefit was introduced to do away with the horrors of childhoods of the past.. Remember the 1930’s and below.

But you are right.. Not only is Child benefit being paid to descent honest hardworking families but also to those undeserving people as a reward for being undeserving…

send the undeserving back to the workhouse until they become liker the rest of us descent honest hardworking people
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whapgra
01:42 AM on 01/30/2012
and what about widows/widowers bringing up children on there own are they to be refused benefits as you sugest...are you also saying that people should stay in abusive relationships just so they still get benefits.
02:51 PM on 01/29/2012
The video of the woman on TV saying " Why should she give up her life style on benefits" was an insult to many who are on benefits through no fault of their own.

Many are having to live in private accomodation because there is a vast shortage of Local Authority housing stock, which is after all the result of a previous Tory Government. There is not enough Social Housing available within the capping rates, Local Authorities were forced to use Private Sector Landlords to fulfill their obligations imposed by central government and whos rents are way above capping.

Grant Shapps the Housing Minister approves Iain Duncan Smiths CSA charges yet has made no comment or proposals on how to deal with the problem of private landlords over charging or plans to help Local Authorities. Also, many private landlords don't want Housing Benefit claiments no matter how good tenants are, even those with excelent references.

Yes there is a need to stop people like the cheeky woman seen on TV expressing 'her need' to stay in expensive private accomodation in order that she, in her own words, "can maintain her lifestyle." I doubt if there is a property owned by any Local Authority throughout the country that could match a private landlords.
04:00 PM on 01/29/2012
it wasn't only an insult to said people it is an even bigger insult to people who are trying to better themselvs by actually working for a living why should people not working be better off than people working and paying taxes
06:31 PM on 01/29/2012
You do know there are as many people, in work, claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit as there are unemployed people claiming them.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
04:05 PM on 01/29/2012
Electrastar I absolutely agree with you. I saw that woman on TV, it amazed me that anyone would have the nerve to sit there and say that. As you said, an insult to those on benefits through no fault of their own. Local authority housing is a rare breed these days, to sell them off defeats the object of safety net, because after all, surely that is what social housing is all about, safety net. Clearly the whole thing needs ripping up and starting again, if it works, don't fix it, but if it doesn't work then clearly the thing to do is fix it.
02:28 PM on 01/29/2012
I.D.C, is a complete idiot if he thinks we believe he is doing this for the benefit of the Country, or that it is in some way getting scroungers off benefits. It is solely a means of getting votes, they put both the positive and negative information out, they use peoples prejudices against the minorities who genuinely cannot live without benefits. What I.D.C should be doing is setting about getting people back into work, creating jobs, even menial jobs such as clearing streets of graffiti, sweeping road, clearing fly tipping, giving this work to those on benefits and if they don't want to work then stop their benefits.
I agree there are too many who get paid excessive amounts for doing nothing, I am also in agreement that by having children you should not get more from the state, if you want kids, you pay for them yourself, contraception is basically free for all.
What I also want to see is the benefits MPs get to be removed, if they want to make an example of the public then they should take the same medicine, it has always been one rule for the Conservatives and keep the working class poor, although in truth there is now little to choose between any of the three main parties, they are all greedy self-gratifying and mostly unfit to be in post as an MP.