Letter: Justice for the family
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Ros Hepplewhite (Letters, 30 October) is correct in claiming that the Child Support Agency is operating within the law, but she is cutting a corner in claiming that the Child Support Act, which set it up, was debated in Parliament 'with a broad consensus of support'.
In the House of Lords this consensus was extended only to the principle of the Act, and debates were dominated by a chorus of criticism, from every quarter of the House, of the way the Act was designed to operate.
Most of the criticism now appears to have been justified. The Act needs a fundamental review. This review should be governed by three principles. First, existing court orders that command the confidence of both parties should not be upset. To upset them can only bring the law into disrepute, which is not helpful.
Second, the Government should uphold its own principle that no useful purpose is served by shifting poverty from the first family to the second. For example, a man who is spending pounds 2,500 a year on a season ticket to go to work, and finds that the Child Support Agency is not allowed to take this expense into account, may be better off abandoning work and living on benefit. This is not in the public interest.
Third, however perfect the formula under which the agency operates, there will always be a need for discretion to accommodate facts unforeseen by the formula. A justice achieved by ignoring material facts is illusory.
Yours sincerely,
RUSSELL
House of Lords
London, SW1
30 October
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments