Caerphilly’s Labour MP Wayne David has called on the UK Government to close a loophole in Child Support Agency (CSA) rules where people with certain jobs are exempted from support payments.
Currently, non-resident ex-partners who have certain exempted jobs do not have to pay maintenance for their children.
In a Westminster Hall adjournment debate on Tuesday, Mr David highlighted the example of Nicola Richardson of Gilfach, Bargoed.
Ms Richardson’s former partner is a part-time firefighter. As such, Ms Richardson’s ex-partner does not have to pay maintenance for his children because part-time firefighters are exempted by the CSA regulations.
Mr David called upon the UK Government to urgently review the regulations.
He said: “This unfairness has to be addressed. It is quite wrong that children are being denied the financial support to which they are morally entitled. There are no grounds whatsoever for certain categories of employment to be excluded from CSA maintenance payments. Councillors, members of the territorial army and part-time firemen should be obliged to support their children like everyone else.”
Update – December 26 2011
Further to this article, the ex-partner of Ms Richardson, who does not want his name published to protect the children, contacted Caerphilly Observer and asked for the following statement to be published. Caerphilly Observer is happy for this clarification to be made.
“This debate has caused great distress and suffering to my family and I feel that Wayne David’s example concerning Ms Richardson did not quote all the facts in this particular case.
“I totally agree with all fathers/mothers paying Child Maintenance for their children irrespective of their profession and I understand the campaign for the law to be changed. However it is important to note that each case is individual.
“What I do not support is my portrayal as a ‘bad’ father. Although my name was not mentioned in the debate, Caerphilly and the surrounding area is a close community and I feel that I have been judged unfairly.
“What I want to point out is that there is always two sides to a story.
“I paid a substantial amount of capital into a property transfer which I was informed would be taken into account as a variation and hence another contribution for the nil award. This has not been mentioned in the debate or in any statement produced by Mr David.
“Until recently I also paid weekly voluntary maintenance payments and it was only when I lost one of my two jobs that I had to stop. I am an involved dad who went to court to obtain Parental responsibility and a Contact Order for my children. I see my children on a weekly basis and they are collected from school by my parents as an example of some of the support given to Ms Richardson.
“I feel that the debate was very inaccurate and did not tell the true facts of the ‘example’ given.
“I am very disappointed and annoyed that Mr David felt the need to draw attention to this without first seeking my side of the story and I feel justified in asking him for a public apology.”
This is a surprising piece of information, I never realised that councillors, TA, etc were exempt from CSA payments. Maybe I should not be surprised as the CSA has not exactly covered itself in glory during the whole of its ignominious history.
As a neutral observer it appears that some absent parents, usually men, are pursued remorselessly, to the point of suicide. Others seem to be left alone.
Wayne David is right to highlight anomalies in the way the CSA operates but maybe it is time to be a little more radical and abolish the CSA altogether. It was set up to save government money, not to benefit the children. A rethink is needed to develop a fairer system where the children are the first priority and the financial circumstances of both parents are taken into account.
I think that Labour MP's should get their facts right before they slander poor fathers for not paying child support.
I agree that all fathers should pay for their children and the CSa should amend their regulations. All should pay to support their children.
I also think that this MP needs to look closer at the 'example' he is using and obtain the correct story before discussing this in the House Of Commons.
I think that this is disgusting that a Local MP can debate using an 'example' of a certain fire-fighter and his ex-partner Ms Richardson without getting the true facts of the story.
There is always two sides to a story! I feel it should be expected that the MP should have obtained the two sides before having this debate, and causing distress the the parties involved.
I am also a neutral observer and I also agree with Richard Williams comments – Wayne David has a right to highlight anomalies in the way the CSA operates.
What concerns me is Joe Bloggs/Graham Crocker's comment that highlights the fact that the MP did not seek information from all concerned(fire-fighter)to obtain all the evidence before he used this as an example of the fire-fighter not paying Child Support.
I would not be happy if I was the fire-fighter and having his name and reputation dragged through the mud for the benefit of a regulation!!! Seek Legal Advice Mr Firefighter and get a written apology from the MP for slandering your name.
Thanks
Mary
Ohhhh so let me get this straight………………
Wayne David presents an example of Ms Richardson's case to the House of Commons, using only her case as an example and there is no communication with the ex-partner to get his side of the story? I think 'FATHERS FOR JUSTICE' would like to have a look at this one.
I do agree that it is unfair and wrong that children are being denied the financial support to which they are morally entitled and the CSA need to look at that.
I also think it is unfair that the MP did not get both sides of the story before publishing/debating a topib that involves both sides.
The MP here has been made an example of and begs me to question his ability to operate as an MP. Given that he is paid from my coucil tax I am not happy that he gives so much time to someone resides in MTCBC. The lack of underpinning knowledge in this case is laughable. However for the sake of the children I am glad this is brought to light as maybe now something can be done about "the actual" living situation of the children. Lets look at human rights of the children and child protection issues. Anyone can be a mother after all! Real parenting issues need to be addressed here not a personal attack mascerading as a debate. How can an MP allow himself to be used in this way.
I have been reading with interest all the comments that everyone has made with regards to the above debate.
Mr Wayne is completely correct in bringing the CSA Exemptions to the forefront of the Government and should carry on rallying for the law to change. There are so many disadvantaged children out there that need the financial support from both parents.
So what is the other side/correct story with regards to the firefighter?
'As such, Ms Richardson’s ex-partner does not have to pay maintenance for his children because part-time firefighters are exempted by the CSA regulations'.
So does that mean he has not paid? Does it mean he has not given his child/children financial support?
Why is everyone so angry at the MP? Slander? What has the MP said that is slanderous/libel?
Can the Caerphilly Observer find this out?
People need to know this juicy information.
I think some contributors to this blog are completely missing the point of the debate, i.e. who should be financially responsible for the well being and welfare of their own children, estranged or not?. If the law says Councillors, TA members, Firefighters etc should not be held legally responsible for financially supporting their offspring, then that is basically and fundamentally wrong and the law needs changing or abolishing altogether, there is no justification for allowing any man or woman to neglect their responsibility to their children and there has to be laws which forces that responsibility upon them, it is another matter if works or not, but that is a matter for the state, i.e. people like Wayne David MP but what you don't say is that some people are exempt from the law, and this appears to me to be the basis of the debate.
No such thing as slander or defamation when it comes to Parliamentary Privilege, so it could not be Wayne David who has committed any offence of defamation or slander, but, to report his comments made under Parliamentary Privilege, to the wider public, may do so, dear me, come to think about it that's another law were some have to comply whist others are exempt, can that be right?????.
I have every confidence that knowing the way the Editor of this on line newspaper applies rules of fair and equatable comment will be sure he has not committed such offences, therefore, protecting Wayne David from the same accusations.
Just to answer the point raised by Trefor,
Reports of Parliamentary proceedings are protected under Qualified Privilege provided certain conditions are met.
1. The report is fair and accurate (of what was said in proceedings)
2. Published without malice.
Politicians speaking in both Houses are covered by absolute Privilege. This is also extended to Hansard, which is the official record of what was said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/…
This debate has really caused a stir on this site.
I have been reading the new Child Maintenance Regulations act, which is available online and was published in May 2011. Which clearly states that the law is in the process of being changed:- http://www.childmaintenance.org/en/publications/c…
One consequence of using HMRC income will be that the taxable payments
received by non-resident parents in certain occupations will no longer be ignored in maintenance calculations. Therefore taxable income from the list of occupations below will be included in the maintenance liability. This will provide consistent treatment of non-resident parents who have taxable payments from work. The child support scheme introduced in 2003 disregarded payments made to non-resident parents engaged as any of the following:-
50.1. Auxiliary coastguards.
50.2. Part-time fire-fighters.
50.3. Part-time lifeboat crew members.
– 13 –
50.4. Reserve or territorial force members.
50.5. Local authority councillors.
So what I don't understand is how this can actually get to the point of debate in the House of Commons when the law is already in the process of changing. What is there to debate or to petition about? The Government had already made the decision in May 2011 to change the law. What a waste of tax payers money!!!
With regards to Absolute Privilege – shall we discuss this about the MP's who are hiding behind Absolute Privilege. One word 'expenses'!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1249539…
Update – December 26 2011
Further to this article, the ex-partner of Ms Richardson, who does not want his name published to protect the children, contacted Caerphilly Observer and asked for the following statement to be published. Caerphilly Observer is happy for this clarification to be made.
“This debate has caused great distress and suffering to my family and I feel that Wayne David’s example concerning Ms Richardson did not quote all the facts in this particular case.
“I totally agree with all fathers/mothers paying Child Maintenance for their children irrespective of their profession and I understand the campaign for the law to be changed. However it is important to note that each case is individual.
“What I do not support is my portrayal as a ‘bad’ father. Although my name was not mentioned in the debate, Caerphilly and the surrounding area is a close community and I feel that I have been judged unfairly.
“What I want to point out is that there is always two sides to a story.
“I paid a substantial amount of capital into a property transfer which I was informed would be taken into account as a variation and hence another contribution for the nil award. This has not been mentioned in the debate or in any statement produced by Mr David.
“Until recently I also paid weekly voluntary maintenance payments and it was only when I lost one of my two jobs that I had to stop. I am an involved dad who went to court to obtain Parental responsibility and a Contact Order for my children. I see my children on a weekly basis and they are collected from school by my parents as an example of some of the support given to Ms Richardson.
“I feel that the debate was very inaccurate and did not tell the true facts of the ‘example’ given.
“I am very disappointed and annoyed that Mr David felt the need to draw attention to this without first seeking my side of the story and I feel justified in asking him for a public apology.
I totally agree that the law should be changed and all parents should be finanically responsible for their children, and there should be no exemption regardless of their profession. I feel that Mr David should publically apologise for causing such distress to this family without seeking all the facts.
I feel I must respond to the criticisms made of me by the ex-partner of my constituent, Ms Richardson.
It has not been, nor is it, my intention to become involved in the unfortunate dispute between Ms Richardson and her ex-partner. Suffice to say that Ms Richardson has an entirely different view to that expressed by her ex-partner about the level of support which is being given to their children.
In the Westminster Debate I cited the example of Ms Richardson because her ex-partner, as a part-time fire-fighter, has been given a ‘nil’ assessment by the Child Support Agency (CSA). As Ms Richardson’s ex-partner has indicated above, the decision of the CSA has been followed. I was informed by the CSA that the sole reason for the Nil assessment was the fact that Ms Richardson’s partner was a part-time fire-fighter and therefore was excluded by the regulations as they stand.
The point I was making in the debate was that I consider it to be morally wrong for certain professions to be excluded from CSA assessments for no good reason. Ms Richardson’s ex-partner has stated that he too believes that this rule is unfair and indeed the Government has indicated that the regulations for the ‘new’ Child Support body will not have such exclusions. It is unclear, however, if the new regulations will apply to individuals who have already have had an assessment under the current regulations.
I quote Mr Wayne David's comment above "It has not been, nor is it, my intention to become involved in the unfortunate dispute between Ms Richardson and her ex-partner"
MR DAVID, YOU BECAME INVOLVED IN THIS DISPUTE AS SOON AS YOU USED MS RICHARDSON AS AN "EXAMPLE" IN YOUR DEBATE.
You also mentioned that "I was informed by the CSA that the sole reason for the Nil assessment was the fact that Ms Richardson’s partner was a part-time fire-fighter and therefore was excluded by the regulations as they stand"
I agree that you did approach the CSA but my understanding of the matter (correct me if I am wrong) was when you approached the CSA they were not willing/allowed to discuss the case with you over the phone and were unwilling to give you precise information on any particular case.
In this instance you only received "general enquiry" information about Exemptions and not information on the ACTUAL case in question.
Therefore, this raises alarming questions about whether you were fully equipped with the facts? Did you have both sides of the story? Did you approach the ex-partner for his side?…I THINK NOT!!!!!
Ms Richardson is going to have an entirely different view because I assume that she is going to be bitter towards her ex-partner. Again, did you get the facts? Did you approach the ex-partner to get his side of the story?
The problem with the point you made is that you highlighted an "example" of a genuinely GOOD father and making him out to be a person that does not pay towards his children.
I agree that it is morally wrong for professions to be excluded. We all agree with this, including the ex-partner.
What I disagree with and the POINT I am making is that I don't think you did your homework before you used your "Example".
The ex-partner has clearly paid for his children through a property transfer, which would have also given a "nil" award through the CSA regulation, (if you had bothered to check), has weekly contact with them (which he had to fight for in a Court of Law), Feeds them, clothes them, loves and cares for them as much as humanly possible.
Can you also answer the following questions:-
1)MP's should act for people in their constituency. So what
happens when a person does not live in your constituency?
2) The regulations were changed in May 2011, why did it get
to a debate, when the law was already changing?
I am outraged that you feel you can place your comments on here, but you are not willing to reply to any emails that has been sent to you. I am disappointed and shocked that a MP can act in this way.
Look Forward to hearing your response!!!!
"sent without prejudice"
It is your MP's job to represent the interests of his or her constituents.
If the constituent lives in a different area then the MP for that area should have dealt with this matter and not the MP in question.
I'm afraid Mr David has been given false information by his 'example'. Miss Richardson actually lives within the Merthyr Tydfil Borough and has never lived within the Caerphilly Borough. Also I don't believe for one minute that the CSA discussed the actual case as this would be a total breach of confidentiality. Even with this law changed, Miss Richardson would still be awarded a nil payment as she has already received payment in the form of a property transfer and both her ex partner and his mother support the children on a daily basis. Unfortunately this is nothing more than an attempt to slander miss Richardson's ex. Mr David should at least check the basic facts before using an example in court.
Hopefully this year legistlation within the CSA will change and these exempt occupations will no longer go with out paying for their children. I acknowledge that their are men out their who a very happy to pay for their children, there is a large amount of men who feel that they can go without paying for children.
I am currently getting £5.00 a week, this is genereally the amount a man has to pay if they are on the dole towards their children, but my husband isnt on the dole he is self-employed and gives false amounts as to what his monthly earning are. He is currently a serving member of the Territorial Army, he is a Staff Sgt within the TA and this year cleared over £9000 pa, plus a £1640.00 annual bounty. His TA money would greatly help me with to support my children as currently I have been left to pay the full mortgage and as I can only work part-time this has been a great strain for me and my sons.
The MP is only trying to be fair to all parents and including these occupations are for the benefit of the children and that is whats important here. The parents of children are big enough to look after themselves, but children need the support of both parents, whether those parents are together or separated.