In my post "A chance to debate the future" I suggested that this newsgroup
should debate some of the topics that Harriet Harman and others were
considering as part of CSA reform.

This current post provides the chance of debating "Simple System versus
Targeted System" - see below.

----------
TOPIC:

(Replies to questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security, from
Hansard, 23
Mar 1998). The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for
Women (Ms Harriet Harman):
(SNIP)

I invite the House to consider three further points. We face some difficult
choices in the necessary reform of child support.

(SNIP)

Secondly, what is the right balance between a clear, simple and
straightforward system and a complex system that deals very closely with
individual needs?

(SNIP)

----------
MY STARTER FOR TEN:

The complexity of CSA assessment arises partly from an attempt to target
the money. Parts of the complexity results from attempts to close loopholes
and stop unneedy people receiving benefit. Other parts of the complexity
arise from an attempt to pay money to special needy cases (or avoid
collecting from needy cases) who would not receive money under a blanket
payment.

If CSA assessment were replaced by a much simpler scheme, with the same
total money available, I would expect that many needy people would be worse
off, and many unneedy people would be better off.

Maintenance based purely on a proportion of income ignores circumstance. A
person with new (post-separation) dependents may be worse off than a person
with no new dependents. An AP with a working, even highly-paid, PWC may
have the same maintenance assessment as an AP with a destitute PWC.

The scheme should not be too simple. (Unless APs make assessment and
collection so hard that there is no choice - in that case, the APs
themselves suffer the consequences).

----------

John Ward