HC Deb 04 July 1994 vol 246 cc10-2
12. Ms Quin

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further representations he has received concerning the Child Support Agency.

14. Mr. Bayley

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the implementation of the Child Support Act 1991.

Mr. Burt

I continue to receive representations from hon. Members, the public and interested organisations covering a wide range of views.

Ms Quin

Given that the Child Support Agency has failed to apply the principle of ability to pay, is it surprising that it risks becoming the greatest political fiasco since the poll tax? Can the Minister tell the House how, in cases where benefit is reduced to mothers who do not give information about the father's whereabouts, that policy helps the child, who is often the wholly innocent victim in such cases?

Mr. Burt

There are two points: first, the formula takes account of people's ability to pay, which is why it is weighted in this particular way; and, secondly, although there was a tremendous amount of worry about benefit reductions before the Act came in, the number of such cases has been extremely small. The benefit reduction lasts for only a short period and it need not happen because the provision for good cause enables any woman who fears harm or undue stress to herself or her child to take advantage of that and therefore not suffer the benefit reduction. There have been many more examples of that than of any benefit reduction.

Mr. Bayley

Why is it right for the Child Support Act 1991 to be retrospective in the sense of setting aside clean-break settlements where, for instance, a home has been passed to the parent with care, but, at the same time, it is wrong for it to be retrospective in the sense of allowing parents with care to have their claim back-dated to the time that they made an application to the Child Support Agency? I have heard of delays of six, eight or even 10 months from the time that an application is made to when the Child Support Agency sends the forms to the absent parent. Who compensates a parent with care for 10 months with no maintenance from the CSA?

Mr. Burt

The Child Support Agency is determined to provide as efficient a service as it can. We know from today's first report that the agency has not been able in all cases to deal with the application forms coming in and to send assessments out as quickly as it would like. A compensation scheme is available if particular delays have been caused by an error in the department, but every effort is now being made to improve the speed with which applications are dealt with. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will know that in most cases time begins to run from when the maintenance inquiry form is sent out.

Mr. Jonathan Evans

Is my hon. Friend aware that the 11 reputable charities that form the child support monitoring group recently proposed that there should be a form of maintenance disregard as they feel that that would bring the public very much behind the whole concept of the Child Support Agency? Bearing in mind the remarks made at the weekend by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has indicated that he is attracted by that proposal, has my hon. Friend received any specific figure proposed by the hon. Gentleman as to how much that might cost?

Mr. Burt

My hon. Friend poses the right question. We have to date received no idea from the hon. Member for Garscadden of how any proposed disregard might be paid for. As my hon. Friend will know, a disregard of £15 a week would cost the Exchequer about £450 million a year. So before we take serious note of what Opposition Members say, the idea needs to be properly costed.

Dr. Spink

Can my hon. Friend confirm that 205,000 cases have been assessed so far, and that in 60 per cent. of them, an absent father was paying absolutely no maintenance for the upbringing of his children? Will he further confirm that 28,000 of those cases related to feckless fathers who had disappeared off the face of the earth, leaving no address with the children's mother; and that in 96 per cent. of cases the children had been left behind on state benefits? Finally, will he confirm that the absent fathers in question were generally enjoying a better life style than the children they had left behind?

Mr. Burt

My hon. Friend's figures are correct. The point is that much press attention has been paid to certain cases, which have tended to obscure the good work being done by the CSA—which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is in the main directed towards those who previously did not pay maintenance. We have a record of finding those who, under the former system, would have been able to disappear, not paying the mothers of their children anything and leaving the full burden on the taxpayer.

The agency needs to be seen for some of the good work that it does, as well as needing to face up to some of the difficulties, which I believe it is responsible enough to face up to.

Mr. Llwyd

To return to the original question: if the Minister is right, and there is some reckoning of ability to pay in the system, why did the chief executive of the CSA tell the Social Services Select Committee on 2 November 1993—and I quote—

Madam Speaker

Order. It is not in order to quote during Question Time.

Mr. Llwyd

Why, then, did the chief executive tell the Committee that she did not have any discretion in the amounts being collected?

Mr. Burt

She was entirely right. The formula laid down by the House sets out the amounts that people have to pay, and it is based on a percentage of people's earnings. It does not leave discretion in the hands of the agency. That was precisely the point of the changes introduced by the Child Support Act, based on the recognition that a wholly discretionary system had in the past all too often failed the mother of the child and left her with too little money. What the chief executive said was thus entirely consistent with the law.