Recommendations & Conclusions
4 items
6
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Children in poverty: Chi…
Rejected
The Department’s own assessment to the NAO “that around 50% of fraud referrals to its Financial Investigations Unit are unfounded” indicates that the system is not functioning as it should be, and, as we will return to later, demonstrates how conflict is encouraged. The Department currently requires evidence for referrals …
Read more
The Department’s own assessment to the NAO “that around 50% of fraud referrals to its Financial Investigations Unit are unfounded” indicates that the system is not functioning as it should be, and, as we will return to later, demonstrates how conflict is encouraged. The Department currently requires evidence for referrals to its Financial Investigations Unit “to safeguard against vexatious claims”. An illustrative 46 Children in poverty: Child Maintenance Service list of the evidence required to make a referral to the Financial Investigations Unit should be made available to receiving parents, alongside guidance on where they might reliably find such evidence. The Department should also set out, in response to this Report, how it will reduce the number of unfounded claims reaching the Financial Investigations Unit, thus improving the experience for receiving and paying parents.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagreed with the committee's assessment that the Financial Investigation Unit referral system is not functioning correctly. While it continues to enhance its fraud strategy and noted a high percentage of investigations result in assessment changes, it only committed to exploring options to educate …
Read full response →
Department for Work and Pensions
10
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Children in poverty: Chi…
Rejected
Child maintenance currently ranks low on the priority list for Universal Credit deductions at twelfth, below deductions for DWP debt, such as advance payments. We disagree that pursuing such debt should hold a higher priority than child maintenance. Deductions for child maintenance should take higher priority than deductions for the …
Read more
Child maintenance currently ranks low on the priority list for Universal Credit deductions at twelfth, below deductions for DWP debt, such as advance payments. We disagree that pursuing such debt should hold a higher priority than child maintenance. Deductions for child maintenance should take higher priority than deductions for the payment of debt owed to the Government. Deductions for child maintenance should take higher priority than deductions for the payment of debt owed to the Government. To assist families, the Government should revise the deduction priority list so that child maintenance is above Government debt and should, in its response to this Report, set out the current deduction priority list and the rationale for Child Maintenance being twelfth.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to reprioritise child maintenance deductions above government debt. It stated that child maintenance is already considered before other government debts like benefit overpayments and there are no current plans to alter the existing deduction priority list, citing the need to …
Read full response →
Department for Work and Pensions
21
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Children in poverty: Chi…
Rejected
Presently it is not possible for child benefit to be split between parents, even in cases of equally shared care. The Department should work with HMRC to enable parents with shared care to split child benefit between them.
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to enable splitting child benefit between parents with shared care. It argued that existing measures provide appropriate support and that splitting payments would introduce additional operational burdens, complexity for claimants, and costs for the Exchequer.
Read full response →
Department for Work and Pensions
24
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Children in poverty: Chi…
Rejected
We have heard evidence that was strongly critical of the effectiveness of Collect and Pay fees. Such fees are particularly pernicious for parents on low incomes and we recommend that the Government should introduce a system for the means-testing of Collect and Pay fees.
Read more
We have heard evidence that was strongly critical of the effectiveness of Collect and Pay fees. Such fees are particularly pernicious for parents on low incomes and we recommend that the Government should introduce a system for the means-testing of Collect and Pay fees.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects means-testing Collect and Pay fees, stating that charges are the right approach to encourage parents to use direct pay arrangements. It believes means-testing could create perverse incentives and add complexity to the system.
Read full response →
Department for Work and Pensions