Child Support Act

HC Deb 24 October 1994 vol 248 cc614-6

4. Mr. Miller

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to change the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt)

I have said on many occasions that the Government are keeping the policy under close review and that continues to be the case. We have no specific proposals at this stage.

Mr. Miller

I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that I have written to him in support of fathers and mothers affected by the inadequacies of the Child Support Act. Will he confirm that he and his officials met many groups over the summer and that all of them pressed the case for sweeping changes to the Act? Will he now give a commitment that such changes will be introduced as a matter of urgency, in the interests of all parts of families?

Mr. Burt

I and colleagues met several groups over the summer. However, one of the problems is that people's interests in the matter are not necessarily the same. The reforms that some people want may not be wanted by others. As I said at the start of my reply, we keep the policy under review. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Select Committee on Social Security is considering the matter at the moment. It would be presumptuous of us to comment on policy direction before the Select Committee has reported.

Mrs. Roe

Does my hon. Friend agree that top priority must be given to sorting out the operation of the Child Support Agency? Does he also agree that policy change inevitably leads to disruption and that such changes should be kept to a minimum?

Mr. Burt

My hon. Friend has made two significant points. First, with regard to the agency's administration, it is common currency in the House that the agency's first year was not a good one, and that was acknowledged by the agency in its report. During the summer, we took steps to implement administration reforms to ensure that more people receive more maintenance and that all cases are dealt with better. There is already some fruit from that. From April this year, about 300,000 cases have been cleared, compared with just over 360,000 for the whole of last year. We are endeavouring to ensure that administration is better. We know just how much that means to all hon. Members.

Secondly, I agree that policy changes cause disruption. Therefore, they are not easy matters to bandy about. All policy changes must be thought through extremely carefully.

Mr. Barnes

Why is the agency's operation entirely inept? Why is the principle upon which the agency is operating entirely heartless and one which requires considerable transformation? Will not it be like the operation of the poll tax in respect of which there were transitional demands and transitional alterations until finally it was transformed into something else? The operation needs to be transformed.

Mr. Burt

No. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's major point, I do not think that it is wholly inept. I certainly do not think that the principle behind it is heartless. That principle has been endorsed by the House on several occasions since the Child Support Act was passed. We all want to ensure that the principles behind child support are delivered properly. That is our determination and I believed that it was the determination of the whole House.

Dr. Michael Clark

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people are under the misapprehension that the CSA chases only those absent parents—generally fathers—who have paid money in the past? When my hon. Friend deliberates on the changes, will he bear that point in mind? What proportion of cases now involve chasing fathers who have paid nothing in the past? How will that change in future?

Mr. Burt

The misapprehension that my hon. Friend speaks of is appropriately raised. It has always been considered that the agency would look for those who had not previously paid maintenance as well as for some of those who had previously paid maintenance but whose maintenance payments needed to be raised. Of the 210,000 cases taken on since April this year, more than 77 per cent. involved those who have not regularly paid maintenance. We have also been pursuing 45,000 absent parents who had disappeared. I remind the House that, under the previous system, there was no mechanism for finding those absent parents, and we have been successful in 80 per cent. of cases. That is a solid gain for the children involved and for the mothers who have been looking for those fathers.

Mr. Ingram

I congratulate the Minister on keeping his job in a very changed Department. [Interruption.] Perhaps commiseration is much more appropriate. Will the Minister comment on reports in Sunday's edition of The Observer that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has privately told Conservative members of the Social Security Select Committee to oppose fundamental changes to the Child Support Act? If the Government do not favour taking clean-break settlements into account, do not want a disregard for parents on benefit and do not favour changing the existing formula for calculating maintenance, what changes do they favour, or would that question be more appropriately put to the Treasury, which seems to be running the Department?

Mr. Burt

I dealt with policy in my first answer, when I said that we continue to keep the policy under review and that we must consider carefully what representations are made to us. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, newspaper comment on this topic abounds. If the Government were to take notice of every report, they would do nothing else.

Mr. Cormack

Does my hon. Friend accept that I have brought cases to his notice which show that some conscientious fathers are now required to pay wholly unrealistic amounts which bear no relation to either their obligations or their means?

Mr. Burt

It is precisely because of the depth of concern expressed by my hon. Friends that we are looking carefully at the matter. The formula, which was put into place with considerable support in the House, is causing more maintenance to be paid, and that has been uncomfortable on some occasions. It is because of those cases that have appeared to be particularly hard that the Government are taking the time that they have—indeed, that is why the Select Committee has taken the time that it has—to make sure that they see the way forward clearly and carefully.