Leading Article: Australian rules worth following

MINISTERS can now be in little doubt that the Child Support Agency is proving to be a heavy burden on some families, particularly the poorest. A few children may be better off now than when the agency was established a year ago, but some are worse off and most will have experienced no material improvement in their often dire circumstances.

The main beneficiary has instead been the taxpayer, thanks to savings of pounds 285m on income support payments during the first 12 months. As a result, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Child Support Agency is a misnomer and has been operating under false pretences. Helping the Treasury seems to be its obsession. The biggest losers have been broken families, which are now subject to the additional rancour caused by the agency's unrealistic demands.

Serious flaws in the agency must have been clear from the outset to those who designed it. Australia's well-respected equivalent, on which the agency was based, has avoided most of the pitfalls into which the British version has been plunged.

Here, the agency formula for assessing maintenance payments was made rigid, with little room for discretion, so it frequently fails to consider properly the ability to pay. The Australian version has a right of independent appeal; here, manifest unfairness cannot be set right. The agency also flouts natural justice by allowing past financial settlements to be overturned.

Those who designed the agency were either stupid or arrogant if they thought such unfairness would be tolerated. The public may have taken some time to recognise the problems; indeed, most people rightly continue to respect the underlying principle that both parents should be held responsible, even after separation, for their children's upkeep. But yesterday's national conference on the agency can have left little doubt that this goodwill is reaching breaking point. The agency cannot continue to operate in such a high-handed and unfair manner.

In the light of these realities, the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that the agency is under constant review sounds complacent and platitudinous. Families deserve fast action that will improve the situation for both sides of the divide. This inevitably means that the Government and taxpayers must reduce their takings and allow mothers and fathers to keep more income.

Ministers are out of step with backbenchers, who recognise the electoral threat posed by this issue. The first attempt earlier this year to reform the agency was inadequate. It left unchanged the formula for assessing payments and did not tackle the much hated overturning of binding 'clean-break' settlements. As a result the Government has allowed the growth of opposition to a piece of social policy that is well-founded in principle but poorly enacted.

It would be foolish and unjust for John Major to let matters get further out of hand. A trip to Australia would supply most of the answers.