This is an interesting piece of legislation. It starts off fine, fathers who haven't paid maintenance can be named and shamed. No problem with that. Then they can be blacklisted for credit. Bit more dubious, that blacklist already contains a number of mistakes which make peoples lives a misery. But then you read further and learn that people could be tagged or curfewed. This starts to get really challenging. It is starting to feel wrong. I am stuggling to say why, after all they are technically breaking the law and therefore criminals, but it seems draconian in the least. Yes, they should be held responsible but a working and decent legal system has to be based on a measured response to the problem.
Let's ignore the fact that the tagging system itself has failed to work. That there isn't the manpower to run it properly as it is. Even ignoring that, is this an appropriate response? The child support agency isn't exactly perfect. It seems quite possible that people will be wrongly tagged. That maybe they are trying to appeal but the choice is taken out of their hands. Tagging has a role, but it has to be for reintroducing people into society, people for whom setting curfew has a sense, a reason, or those whose actions mean they need to be monitored. Setting a curfew on someone who has not paid for their child is not setting a punishment to fit the crime. It can almost be seen as churlish. A case of sulking and being heavy handed because someone isn't playing ball nicely. It almost strikes me that a previous failure to be successful in dealing with this problem has lead to a response of throwing heavier weights at it rather than addressing the issue itself.
Where does it stop, tagging for speeding tickets or parking fines? Curfew for dropping a chewing gum wrapper in the street?
2 comments:
The naming and shaming seems a bit rubbish to be honest. Names and shamed on the Child Support Agency website? Oh no! In you local paper, maybe, but who is going to look at the CSA website to see if anyone they know is on there?
I think that, once it has been legally decided how much maintenance should be paid, it should be deducted from tax/benefits and paid directly to the other parent. Seems fair to me, but I'm open to criticism.
hi sarah! scarily quite often it works the other way - the CSA assure the DWP that the absent parent is paying their CSA to the parent with care so they deduct money form the parent with care's benefits.....doh.
and i suspect that some lacky trainee journalist as well as having to sit in the magistrates court writing up speeding offences for the local rag will be delegated check the CSA website for local defaulters to name and shame locally too.
I completely agree that it's the govt minsters and senior civil servants responsible for the CSA who should be under house arrest tho
Post a Comment