Baroness Hollis

Baroness Hollis of Heigham, Department for Work and Pensions minister with responsibility for child support issues, writes exclusively for ePolitix.com on media coverage of the Child Support Agency.

Publicity is a double-edged sword. That's how the warning goes every time some Hollywood starlet complains about being chased by the paparazzi. But it's not true in every instance. In fact, if you're the Child Support Agency (CSA) then publicity only ever has one side, and that is unremittingly negative.Over the past few weeks, it has been open-day in the press on the CSA. The Sun delighted in running a piece where the details of the amount of child maintenance were just plain wrong, but they carried on anyway because it made a good story.

Then the Mail on Sunday joined in the fun with an article knocking the CSA's retraining programme. The whole reason for having the retraining in the first place - namely that the assessment of Child Support is being radically simplified for new clients from next April - was barely mentioned.

I am the last person to say that the CSA is beyond reproach, or anything like it. It is universally acknowledged both within and without the organisation that the CSA has failed staff, parents and children alike. That's precisely why we're changing the way it operates.

But just because it's failed in the past, that doesn't mean that the rules of balanced reporting should be suspended when it comes to the CSA. Part of the problem is that the CSA has no recourse to bad stories. We can't set the record straight even when it's plainly wrong because the Data Protection Act prevents us from divulging the details of any individual case.

Journalists know this. So when the facts aren't sufficiently exciting enough, they spice up their stories secure in the knowledge that we can't publicly challenge their veracity.

Even more worryingly, however, is the way the CSA is continually blamed in the media for absent parents not paying their dues. The bureaucracy and red-tape involved with deciding assessments hasn't helped matters, but as I said earlier, we have taken steps to resolve this.

From April, for every new case referred to the CSA the non-resident parent will have to pay a flat rate of fifteen percent of net salary for one child, twenty percent for two and twenty-five percent for three children or more. This will speed the process up and ensure that all parties know the amounts they can expect to pay and receive from the outset.

It is the CSA's job to ensure that parents are facing up to their financial responsibilities, but far too many of the stories in the press seem to ignore this simple fact. If you bring a child in to this world, you are responsible for that child's personal and financial well-being.

Similarly, it is a journalist's job to present an accurate, balanced report of events. By making things up for the sake of an eye-catching headline, these journalists are failing to put the truth first. And by doing that, they are not just letting down the reading public, but also the million and more children whose interests are served by the CSA.