Child Support Agency (Hansard, 4 July 1994)

7. Mr. Robert Hughes
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the money paid as a result of maintenance assessments made by the Child Support Agency is benefiting children and families; and what percentage is reducing benefit expenditure for the Treasury.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt)
All maintenance is of benefit to children. The payment of regular maintenance can transform the lives of parents with care and their families, and that is widely recognised by their representatives.
A large proportion of maintenance is paid direct to the parent with care by the absent parent. Of the money directly collected, under the Child Support Act 1991, by the Child Support Agency on behalf of parents with care, we estimate that about a third is retained by them and not offset against benefit expenditure.

Mr. Hughes
Does not that answer reveal to the House a disturbing set of figures, and that the Treasury is benefiting much more than anyone else from the activities of the CSA? Why is the hon. Gentleman so secretive about the full figures—the CSA report published today does not carry the information? Does not he understand that if the CSA is to work properly, it must be seen to be accountable and transparent and to be benefiting families and not the Treasury?

§ Mr. Burt
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the House always understood that one of the principles behind the Child Support Act 1991 was that it would ensure that taxpayers supported only those children for whom the state should have responsibility, and that responsibility for children should be passed on to parents, as is proper. That is why it is right that the taxpayer should benefit.
As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the report does, indeed, carry figures. During the past year, it became clear that some information was not as readily available as we would have wished it to be and steps have been taken within the agency to improve that situation. The agency knows how much is flowing through its books in relation to offset benefits. It is not possible for it to calculate all the money that is being paid directly by an absent parent to a parent with care of a child, however, although we are trying to get those figures.

§ Mr. Jacques Arnold
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the savings are made for the benefit of the taxpayer who, up to now, has been ripped off by some fathers who have paid little or nothing at all? Is not it high time that they took up their responsibilities? Is not that why the Child Support Agency is a thoroughly good thing?

§ Mr. Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the past, the system had a tendency to underpin separation agreements—unwittingly—through the taxpayer. That is one of the major reasons why the CSA was introduced—to end that discrimination against other taxpayers.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Does the Minister acknowledge that earlier written parliamentary answers seemed to suggest that only 2 or 3 per cent. of the money went to children and into the hands of the caring parent, not 33.3 per cent., as he just announced? Would he be prepared to put the documentation that establishes that figure in the House of Commons Library, so that hon. Members can look at it for themselves? While he is at it, will he also say whether he is fighting in the Cabinet to get time for new amendments to the primary legislation in next year's legislative programme, because tinkering with the 1991 Act simply will not do?

§ Mr. Burt
I should love to be fighting in the Cabinet, but that opportunity has not yet been made available to me. It would be nice if it was, but I must not anticipate any decisions.
I am aware that my initial answer perhaps caused some surprise among Opposition Members, who may not have read carefully the letter from the chief executive to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), which he quoted this morning. I was seeking to say that that letter makes it clear that there are some sums that could not be calculated in terms of benefit saved in relation to the amount of money that had gone to the parent with care—crucially, in connection with family credit.
Now we have those figures and I am able to tell the House and the hon. Member for Garscadden that the figure of £210 million quoted in that letter can now be updated to £310 million, of which some £73 million goes direct to the parents. The increase is due to the calculation of family credit. It was mentioned in the letter that that calculation could not be done, but it is clear that if those family credit figures were not included, the quoted figures would be distorted. Those figures are now available and I am sure that the hon. Member for Garscadden would agree that they make a much better case for the retention of money for parents with care.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning organisations that seek to undermine the good work of the CSA? Is he aware of the appalling behaviour of Network Against the Child Support Agency, which has sent out hate mail and put up defamatory posters? Does he agree that such behaviour is sour grapes on the part of disaffected fathers?

§ Mr. Burt
The work of some of the groups that oppose the CSA has, sadly, undermined their cause. There are proper ways of expressing dissent and concern about Acts of Parliament, which many hon. Members have experienced in the form of proper letters from concerned parents. Those groups that have formed themselves deliberately to seek to wreck the work of the agency and which have put intense pressure on individual members of the agency and sent unpleasant and dangerous things through the post should realise that they do their case no good.

§ Ms Eagle
Does the Minister appreciate that the chief executive of the CSA does her case no good by taking three or four months to answer letters from Members of Parliament? She then fills those letters with drivel and things that we already know. Will the Minister give an undertaking now that the chief executive will improve the service to Members and will deal with the issues that we raise instead of sending out useless propaganda?

§ Mr. Burt
From some of the questions that I hear from Opposition Members, it seems clear that they need more information, not less.
The chief executive and I acknowledge that the service to Members has not been as good as it should be. Steps are being taken by the agency to ensure that it is improved. The chief executive and I apologise for letters that have been sent out too slowly and we are determined to ensure that the service is better. The provision of information in those letters should be carefully noted by Opposition Members, as it is information which they sometimes badly need.