§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
9.30 am§ Mr. Robert Syms (Poole)I was pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see you arrive in the nick of time for such an important debate. The Child Support Agency is 10 years old. I have been a Member of Parliament for only six of those years, but my predecessor has told me of his massive work load, and says that things have now tailed off. However, in recent months more people have been coming to my surgery and wanting to get on to the agency's new system. I have the feeling that the issue is moving up the political agenda for many of our constituents.
It would be wrong to pretend that everything is going well for the agency. We heard that it had arrears of £2.8 billion. The National Audit Office calculated that 76 per cent. of the agency's calculations were wrong—that is three out of every four cases, a substantial figure. Nevertheless, I shall speak first about the computer problems that seem to be preventing people from getting on to the new system.
Originally, we were promised that the new system would be in use by October 2001. We were then told that it would be by April 2002, but the date was put back again. The system eventually went live for new cases on 3 March 2003. Although the figures may have changed a little in recent weeks, in the region of 132,000 cases have gone on to the new system since March, of which about 23,000 have been assessed. However, 1 million people remain on the old system, and many people are coming to my surgery—most are old cases, but some are new—because they cannot go on to the new system until the migration of cases has taken place.
I read the evidence given to the Work and Pensions Committee a few weeks ago, and it is clear that the process is at least 11 months behind schedule. Despite the efforts of EDS, the computer company, to make the system work properly, the software necessary to ensure the migration of old cases is delayed. The Committee was originally told that it would happen in the summer of 2003, and then that it would happen at the end of the year, with the migration taking place in the spring of 2004. Will the Minister update us on the installation of the new software, and does he have a more accurate date than spring next year?
The computer project is large. The original contract was for £427 million, and the latest estimates are that it will cost £456 million, but it was supposed to reduce the cost of processing cases by 20 per cent. Because of the problems, the agency has suffered a fall in productivity of between 20 and 30 per cent., and evidence suggests that the cost of processing cases is now 20 per cent. higher. I hope that that change is not permanent. We know that the agency plans to reduce the number of 72WH employees from 12,000 to 8,000 in order to make savings, but delays in moving to the new system because it does not operate correctly will have major financial implications for the agency's viability.
The chief executive of the CSA stated clearly to the Work and Pensions Committee that the computer system has not failed. I accept that glitches and difficulties will always occur when introducing new computer systems, particularly with projects that cost more than £400 million. However, many of our constituents, particularly the 1 million who were told that they would move to the new system, may feel that they are not getting the deal that they expected when they expected it.
The question of whether compensation should be paid has been raised, because some are paying more under the old system than they would under the new. I understand that the agency has discussed whether some of those 1 million cases should be given priority. I understand also that the CSA intends to recalculate the payments of those 1 million people, to have a vesting day and to try to deal with them together. I am not sure whether that would be a good or a bad thing, but given the problems, I wonder whether the agency ought to do it in bite-sized chunks, to get on with it and to prioritise.
In the last Work and Pensions questions the Minister was asked about dates. He took the line that the agency wants to get it right, and will not rush things. However, people are looking for dates and, now that things have slipped so much, for some reassurance about when they will move on to the new system, and when they will be able to enjoy the simpler, more transparent and more understandable formula for which they have been waiting quite a long time.
I hope that others will be able to make their points, and I am glad to see so many hon. Members present to debate an agency that has an impact on all our surgeries. People want more definite answers from the Minister and the CSA about where matters are going and what dates will need to be met. One million people need to be migrated, and although some would be worse off, many would be better off. That means 1,200, 1,300 or 1,400 people per constituency—not an insubstantial number of people. It is not unreasonable for them to want to be reassured about when the new system will be delivered.
I want to consider some of the people who regularly come to my surgeries. They are principally non-resident parents, predominately men, who still feel that the system does not treat them well. Dr. Nick Paré, of Oakdale in my constituency, comes in fairly regularly. His main complaint is that he feels like a second-class citizen and that, although we all understand that the interests of children are paramount, many people are bruised by the experience of being dealt with by the Child Support Agency. He has discussed the matter with other non-resident parents in my constituency. Many feel that they are not given the same amount of information or the same degree of support as the parent with care, and that the system does not listen to their concerns. I have a long list of examples, but I will not go into them all.
Even when such parents take up complaints with the agency, they feel like they are dealing with jelly. That is because, I have been told, officers mysteriously disappear, names seem never to have existed, and the 73WH parents feel that they are not given a fair deal by the CSA. One perennial complaint crops up when the parent with care is wealthier and in a relationship. They sometimes use the CSA and the system to put the nonresident parent into a situation of financial disadvantage, so that they cannot visit the children. That is particularly a problem when they have moved away, and such situations have caused difficulties.
When the non-resident parent is poor, disabled, blind and so on, legislation does them no favours. The new system may provide a better outcome, certainly in those categories, but many people are still bruised. The principal complaint that I receive is that the system makes people become single parents by making reconciliation difficult, and that injecting the CSA into people's lives makes their relationship with their former partners, and sometimes their children, very difficult.
There are still many bruised people out there, and many who feel that they are not treated well. We should take into account the fact that there are two sides to the coin. Children need to be looked after and the parent with care needs a decent service in terms of money from the CSA, but many people still feel that they are persecuted—that may be too strong a word, but a lot of people would use it to describe their position.
Several hon. Members wish to speak, so I will not go on much longer. My principal purpose today is to get some answers about the migration of the computer system. One million people want answers about when that will occur, so that they can plan their lives. We need to understand that, having been promised a new formula and looked forward to it, they do not want to hear more excuses. They want action and delivery.
§ Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire)I shall touch briefly on three points, as many Members want to speak.
First, as those who have assiduously followed debates on the administrative process of introducing the new system will know, I asked a series of parliamentary questions about the robustness of the computer system throughout its development, but the Government declined several times to provide information, as they regard it as commercially sensitive. If one rings up the Child Support Agency, as I do on behalf of constituents, and talks to those who handle cases, it is quite evident that the computer system has not functioned adequately for some time. I have been told numerous times, "Well, I'm afraid the system is down, so I can't obtain the information that you're after. Please give me your phone number and I'll call you back."
One of the reasons I take up cases is that it is useful to learn at first hand about the administrative problems that our constituents face. I have a background in IT and took considerable interest in, and was extremely sceptical about, the system. To say that I have been disappointed by its implementation and performance is an understatement.
Secondly, there was particular confusion about handling cases, which tells me that there is a massive administrative overload with which the CSA is not competent to deal. I cite as an example the case of Mrs. W. I am sure she would not mind if I gave all the details, 74WH but I will not do so as the other party is also a constituent, and I am sure that he would not want their affairs to be discussed openly in Parliament. Mrs. W first applied in December 2002. In May 2003, she was told that there was no trace of her application. In June, she applied again by phone, which a new system allows our constituents to do, and was told a few weeks later that there was no trace of that application, either. At the end of June, she applied for the third time by post.
Apparently, the case was first taken up at Dudley. Dudley is one of the centres that deal with cases from my constituency, although they are sometimes dealt with in Belfast. In July, the case was, apparently, passed to Stockport. The staff there thought it had been sent to Long Benton, although I cannot imagine why they thought that. It transpires that the case was actually sent to Plymouth. Despite several phone calls made by my staff and me, no one checked where it had got to until I persistently rang a number at Long Benton. The person who answered was clearly surprised to hear from me. They told me that they did not have the case, but promised to track it down. To give them their due, they set about the task with determination and located it in Plymouth. I believe that it is now being processed. It is hard to understand why these cases are shuttled around the country without a proper log of where they have gone.
Thirdly, there is the question of how cases closed under the old system are handled. A case can be closed for several reasons. Sometimes, the two parties agree not to proceed with the CSA, and there are no benefit implications. That is the happy part, although it can be temporary because people may, and sometimes do, change their minds. A case can be closed because someone's assessment is zeroed, as I understand it, by the fact that their costs are too high to merit a payment. Again, the person involved has sometimes chosen not to pursue the sums involved.
My constituent, Mr. H, was paying arrears under the old system at about £5 a week, but the case was formally treated by the CSA as having been closed in 1999. His ex-partner, having carefully examined the rules of new system, decided that it was an opportune moment to reactivate the case. Much to his surprise, my constituent was contacted by the CSA and told that he was now likely to pay not £5 a week in arrears, but £41 a week, which was the correct assessment for two children, with a factoring in of one child from his second relationship.
Strangely, if the case had been open and my constituent had continued to pay £5 a week under a normal assessment, not only would it have been impossible to pass him to the new system, but he would have received phasing-in assistance for the transition between the payment that he was making and the payment for which he was now being asked. Instead, he faces a huge change in his personal circumstances that I am sure will prompt a review of his position.
A conversation with a third constituent demonstrated that the rules on closed cases are becoming known in the CSA community, and we all recognise that there is a network in the community that passes on information that may be advantageous to others. It is also clear that a perverse incentive is being built in—I see a nod from the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—for people to cease work, for example, since one needs to be out of work only for a while to get the case closed for a 75WH time and then reopened as a new case, which cannot be advantageous in any circumstances. I have asked the Government before to consider how closed cases will he handled in the transition to the new system, and I hope that they will take the opportunity to do so today.
§ Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion)I shall concentrate my remarks on the case of a constituent, of which I have given the Minister notice. It shows a number of the CSA's failings. It is perhaps not a useful case, but I hope that hon. Members will find it interesting.
The case goes back almost exactly four years to 10 November 1999, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on his good timing in almost hitting the anniversary. It concerns Mrs. Carolyn Gowman, who lives in Aberporth. On 10 November 1999 she won an appeal against her ex-husband Mr. Bruce and was granted maintenance of £147.38 a week. However, the CSA made no liability order against Mr. Bruce until February 2002, more than two years later, when the arrears stood at more than £40,000. That was the CSA's first failing.
There is no doubt that Mr. Bruce was playing the system—those in the CSA community know how to do so, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said. For instance, Mr. Bruce was claiming a benefit during some of that period, yet Mrs. Gowman was awarded a departure on 3 April 2000 on the grounds that his lifestyle was not compatible with his claimed income. I am sure that that example will strike a chord with other hon. Members. The icing on the cake was that Mr. Bruce was a solicitor, so not only should he have been able to afford the payments, but he knew how to screw the system.
When the CSA made the initial liability order, it compounded the two-year hiatus by failing to locate Mr. Bruce and pay Mrs. Gowman the money that she was and still is owed. In fact, the only money that she has received from the CSA in four years is £170 in compensation for delays, inaction and poor service, although I regret to say that it took my intervention even to get that. I have other constituency cases that relate to the CSA, but Mrs. Gowman's is the worst, because it shows such a history of inaction, desk-bound lethargy and failure. She and I have both been fobbed off, which does not make me feel very happy towards the CSA as an agency.
I shall give an example of the CSA's lethargy and its unsympathetic approach. Using her contact, Mrs. Gowman found a likely address for Mr. Bruce in August 2002 and she immediately gave it to the CSA. By then I was also involved in her case. On 8 April 2003 I received a letter from the chief executive of the CSA, Doug Smith, stating that
to date, written and telephone contact has proved unsuccessful. We have arranged for a visit to be made to the address she gave.An address was given to the CSA in August 2002, and I received a letter in April 2003 saying that a visit to that address had been arranged. Mr. Bruce has a history of working the system and avoiding his responsibilities, yet all the CSA had done by then was send letters to the address and make telephone calls. That is utterly pathetic and incompetent. I do not even know that anything has been done now, because, after promising 76WH to keep me informed, the CSA promptly ignored both Mrs. Gowman and me. That is why I am pleased to able to raise the matter in the House today.
It took more effort to get another letter on 15 July 2003. The CSA completely ignored questions about whether it had ever properly investigated the address—I suspect that Mr. Bruce has long since flown the nest—and lamely said that it would deal with enforcement when it had a confirmed address. It missed every opportunity to confirm the address and to make certain, through the Inland Revenue checks, that it had the right person. This has had a profound effect on Mrs. Gowman and her family. One can imagine what impact losing £150 a week has had on her income stream. She became disabled in 2002, and retired from work on the grounds of ill health. On Monday, the current outstanding arrears stood at £60,274.25, accruing at £187.53 per week, or £1.75 per hour and a half of debate in Westminster Hall. I made that calculation while listening to the hon. Member for Poole.
I have contacted my constituent throughout the week. Every time she or I contact the CSA we are told that a trace action will be instigated that very day. Mrs. Gowman was told that on 20 October. On 10 November, she was informed that there was a different trace action from the previous one. I do not know how many trace actions can be put in train. I understand that a trace action goes through the Inland Revenue, and that it is only possible to have one of them. Is it the same trace action that I was promised on 15 July? Three trace actions have been mentioned, but the problem is the CSA's inactivity and the fact that it has been fobbing us off, to use the technical term.
I have written to the Minister's colleague in the House of Lords about this case. I hope that the Minister will say something today or write to me about it. More importantly, I hope that he will address the wider issue. How can so many people be left sick, unable to work and owed £60,000 and more, with the CSA doing nothing to get that income to them? It does not matter whether it is the woman or the man who has been left behind; it is the principle. The CSA was established because so many people—particularly men it has to be said—were leaving marriages and not providing for their children. The CSA is perpetuating that problem. Indeed, it is exacerbating it in the case of Mrs. Gowman. I hope that the debate will enable the Minister to reply to the concerns of hon. Members, and to give a considerable push into a certain part of the CSA's anatomy.
§ Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South)I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a couple of cases that I have been involved with in the past few years.
When discussing the weaknesses of the CSA, we should consider also some of the changes that have taken place. Whenever a marriage or partnership breaks up, it is important that the children are protected as much as possible. I should like to share with hon. Members my knowledge of how cases are processed and how calculations are made. Delays are caused because of the time taken by the agency caused by the apparent failure of the computer system. We are still awaiting the migration of old cases to the new system. That should be done as quickly as possible.
77WH The agency often relies on clerical calculations. I have discussed cases with the parent with care, and they are often told that the computer system has broken down. Only after my intervention as a Member of Parliament has the agency been prepared to make a manual calculation. Some people are seriously in need of the finances that the system should produce for them, yet many suffer in silence—they feel unfairly disadvantaged—because the revision of a manual calculation is not available.
I shall concentrate on three cases. The first is an individual in a neighbouring village to my constituency. Her partner is a chief engineer working for Shell who earns £4,000 a month tax-free. According to the CSA, he does not have residency in this country. Every three months, he comes to Scotland and has the children for the weekend. We know that he has an address in the local village and that he stays with his partner, but the CSA was reluctant to become involved.
When the case was raised in 2002, we had to get as much information as possible. We spoke to Shell, and were told that the man was based on the Isle of Man but works out of Singapore. The company said that it could do nothing. The CSA originally rejected jurisdiction, because the man had no habitual residence in the UK. Only when the parent with care went to an appeal tribunal was the agency's decision overturned. She pursued the case herself, and the appeal decision was made on 24 June this year.
An interim assessment of £214 per week was made, and it was carried out in October 2002. Investigations subsequent to the appeal decision have taken a long time. Constituency workers in my office did all the ground work. The investigation team was proactive; it provided full bank details, the registration number and the make and model of his car, and details of the collection and dropping off of the children. We argued that the CSA had the opportunity to serve papers, but the agency dismissed our case.
The agency is now putting together an investigation team, but because all the ideas that were put to the CSA investigation team came from my office and the parent with care, I feel extremely frustrated that it will not give us feedback on the case, and will not tell us whether it is likely to bring it to a successful conclusion. It is important that the CSA works to its maximum to ensure that a parent who is not living up to his responsibilities and not paying money is brought into the system and made to pay.
Maladministration was a major problem in a case that involved the loss of an application form submitted in February 2001. My constituent was getting no response, and only after my intervention was a clerical calculation made. For gross inconvenience over a three-month period, £85 was awarded. The financial loss has yet to be calculated; that will be done at some time in the future. The CSA has accepted responsibility for the loss of the paperwork, but £85 was a derisory payment. It is important that we move forward when dealing with such cases.
There are weaknesses in the phone line for MPs. It fails to integrate with the public phone lines, so the two are not tying up. After an MP has intervened in a case 78WH and it has been passed on, the constituent can get progress updates only through the MP's office. That aspect of the system is bad and must be rectified. It must either be resolved or constituents must be updated by the CSA, because the situation is causing frustration.
I know of other cases in which there is apparent insufficient recognition of hardship. People can suffer dramatically while waiting for payments. When lost cases and correspondence delay payment of maintenance, that should be properly reflected in the payment made. There is concern that a non-resident parent may be sent several letters requesting details of income and not respond. In that case, fewer letters would suffice and the threat of further action could be more swiftly invoked leading to earlier payment and a shorter delay in the resident parent receiving the money.
We must recognise that the CSA is a service provided for those who need it. All too often, absent parents in my constituency complain that they have become an easy target. They complain that the CSA concentrates not on difficult cases but on cases that are easily resolved. We have to change the culture of the CSA.
I apologise that I must leave at 10.30, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on giving us the opportunity to debate the CSA. I hope that we can resolve the weaknesses in the system and, if we do so, we are doing our job.
§ 10.1 am
§ Bob Russell (Colchester)I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on initiating the debate. So far, nobody has spoken in support of the Child Support Agency, and I suspect that that will continue. I do not envy the Minister, who must try to defend the indefensible.
I am sure the Minister has been advised that I have asked numerous questions, both written and oral, about the Child Support Agency. From what we have heard today, it is clear that I am not alone in feeling grave disquiet, and I could echo the cases mentioned by every hon. Member so far. I am in such regular correspondence with the chief executive that I can recite his name and address, including the postcode. The CSA dominates my advice bureau and postbag, and from what I have heard today, that is matched across the country.
I shall not cite individual cases by name, but I endorse the comment that the CSA picks cases that are sitting ducks and easy targets. Those are usually fathers, but sometimes mothers, who have no way of escaping from the system. It may be going too far to say that they are harassed and pilloried, but that is how many feel.
I shall concentrate on the other end of the spectrum, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), and on people who know how to abuse the system to avoid paying what they should. Generally, those people can afford to pay substantial sums for their offspring. How any man—it is mostly men, but sometimes women—can choose not to provide for his flesh and blood mystifies me. There are evil people out there who will do everything they can to avoid payment, whereas the person on the factory floor, in a controlled working environment, is driven for every penny that can be sucked from him.
79WH The Child Support Agency knows of the three cases that I shall cite. I shall not mention the cases by name as that would be inappropriate. One is the case of a prominent member of the community who overlooked disclosing the £40,000 that he had received from a public source. Clearly, there is a breakdown in communications when a sum of that magnitude paid to a member of the community from one public purse is not declared on his statement to the CSA. However, even when evidence of that is produced for the CSA, action does not follow. I congratulate the former wife on her immense detective work. She did all the work that the CSA did not, and the evidence was given to the CSA on a plate, but still nothing happened.
The other two cases also involved ex-wives going to extraordinary lengths to do detective work to obtain evidence of where the errant father/husband had gone and of their lifestyles. That evidence was given to the CSA on a plate, but again there were failures in the system all the way along the line. In both cases, I begged the CSA to look at the houses and lifestyles of the rich fathers who, according to the system, were penniless. One of the hard-up fathers employed an accountant to prove how poor he was. One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that something somewhere is not right. A four-year-old could see that the lifestyle was such that those fathers could afford to pay for their children.
§ Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)My hon. Friend has touched on something that, in the cases I have seen, concerns me greatly. Because of the Child Support Agency's deficiencies, the aggrieved parent of whichever sex has to concentrate on, and becomes possessed and obsessed with, chasing their ex-partner. That is to the detriment of the children in the family. It worries me terribly that children who are trying to cope with their parents' broken marriage and not having both their parents are neglected because the CSA does not do its job.
§ Bob RussellI endorse those comments. It is fair to say that the CSA is not part of the healing process. Indeed, it adds considerably to the trauma of many thousands of families. If the CSA cannot get its act together, perhaps it should go.
§ 10.7 am
§ Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly)Like other hon. Members, I have come across numerous examples in my constituency office and surgery of cases that clearly demonstrate the failure of the CSA. At the risk of boring hon. Members, I, too, shall give an example of a case that caused a great deal of grief for the parties involved and on which my office expended a great deal of time and effort.
I shall call the individual Ms A, of Nelson, near Caerphilly. She waited nine months for the CSA to calculate her ex-partner's liability, and the calculation was achieved after many letters and telephone calls from her. However, she contacted my office because there seemed to be a logjam in the system at that point. My office staff made numerous telephone calls to Birkenhead, but were passed from pillar to post, and little progress was made. In frustration, they referred the case to me and I intervened through the hotline for MPs.
80WH Initially, some progress seemed to be made. The evaluation took place and the father truthfully informed me and his ex-partner that a standing order had been set up. Although the CSA accepted that a standing order had been set up and payments were being made, it could not find the money that had been transferred to it. Eventually, after some weeks, the CSA accepted that the money was somewhere in the system and it promised to ensure that the money was passed on to the gentleman's ex-partner. I was then informed that there were difficulties with—guess what?—the computer system.
As Baroness Hollis wrote to me:
Regrettably problems with the Agency's new computer system made it impossible to set up the accounts necessary in Ms A's case, and initially prevented the payments from being sent to her.That is a frank admission of the situation. I intervened and tried to persuade the CSA to circumvent the computer system and issue manual cheques. That was problematic because certain procedures had to be followed, but eventually money was transferred to my constituent and she received everything that was due to her. To the credit of the CSA, a not inconsiderable compensation payment, £1,219.50, was made to Ms A forredress for loss of child maintenance, a contribution towards her costs in contacting the Agency and a consolatory payment for inconvenience caused to her.I welcome that. I urge those who have encountered similar situations to press hard for compensation for their constituents. That situation ended satisfactorily, but I cite it because it is by no means unique; such cases occur frequently. That is why I tabled early-day motion 1786. It is straightforward and I urge all hon. Members to sign it to reflect the difficulties that constituents have brought to them.
What concerns me above all else is the position of children. As has been said, such situations cause a great deal of stress in an already-collapsed relationship. When money is not available, children suffer materially. Ms A from Nelson had no other significant support for her child, and 10 months passed before she received a penny. That is unacceptable. I know that the Government are aware of the situation. They have taken it seriously and reforms are being introduced. However, I urge the Minister not to back off, but to ensure that the reforms are pushed through so that we can have a system of which we are proud. The good intention is there but, sadly, delivery is not.
§ Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)I am flattered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at being confused with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).
I echo the final comments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David)—the children are the ones who lose out. Although I do not blame the CSA for the fact that the system has a unique talent for further dividing families that are already in serious difficulties, I should like to focus on the impact that that has on second families, particularly the pressures and divisions that it 81WH forces on them. For that and other reasons, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for having secured this timely debate.
Almost all my casework to do with the CSA relates to non-resident parents. Most of the cases that we deal with concern exceptions to the rule, or serious inconsistencies. My caseworker, Margaret Gray, who has become something of an expert—I suspect that the caseworkers of all hon. Members do—continues to be baffled by the range of new inconsistencies that pile upon the old inconsistencies that we have not yet sorted out. If we can pray for anything in the new system, it should be clarity, transparency and a better understanding of what is going on.
§ Mr. David Drew (Stroud)I apologise for not having been present at the start of the debate—I was stuck on an underground train. It has been an interesting morning. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must address the issue of confidentiality? That is a great bone of contention. Often, when the parent without care remarries or goes into a new relationship, they are subject to an open search by the Child Support Agency, unlike the parent with care. There is a lack of clarity in that respect and it is an issue that causes more aggravation than most.
§ Mr. MooreThe hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. It encapsulates all the frustration that my constituents express with this one-sided system, and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate set out the problems involved. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort and address that one-sidedness.
I shall put some of the inconsistencies on the record. The first relates to second family's child benefit. On 21 June, I received a letter from the chief executive of the CSA, which stated that in calculating my constituent's liability,
We have only used his net pay and his partner's child benefit.When I tried to clarify why on earth child benefit came into the calculation, the Secretary of State wrote to me:Many forms of income are taken into account in working out assessable income, but basic child benefit is ignored.The CSA "Guide to Child Maintenance" states:If the non-resident parent lives with a new partner and they have a child of their own living with them, an allowance for this child is included in exempt income.Does that mean that for those purposes child benefit is exempt, or is it included? I can get no nearer the truth despite having consulted three different sources of wisdom on the subject.Many families do not know where they stand because of the guide book issued by the CSA, which states that the agency "may" do this, it "can" do that, or a rule "may" apply. In examples from some of my correspondence, the CSA said:
We will probably take action against you.How are constituents expected to get on with their lives if they do not know where they stand?82WH It is especially worrying when people receive a letter that states,
We will probably give your employer a Deduction-from-Earnings order.I think the deduction-from-earnings order system is a scandal. I had a constituent who was given such an order for the total sum of 1p. How that got through the system will never know, and we still await an apology for it.The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke about confidentiality, which is an important issue. I should be intrigued to know how the Data Protection Act 1998 might apply, especially to non-resident parents. One of my constituents informed me that staff at the Falkirk CSA office approached his mortgage lender for information, without reference to him. Is the CSA allowed to do that? Is the Minister comfortable with it? It appears very wrong to me.
The same constituent informed me that his new wife, who is now in receipt of working tax credit, was aware that the CSA must have access to personal details about her on the tax credit system, because it had details of her salary, which she had never supplied to the CSA. The Inland Revenue says that that could not possibly have happened, but it did. How did the CSA obtain details of her salary? What confidence can we have in the system as a result?
Debts that are incurred during the first marriage and are subsequently paid off by the non-resident parent are, as far as I am aware, not added to the assessment for maintenance. That can be crippling for many nonresident parents. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me that that has been addressed under the new system.
I appeal for clarity and efficiency in the CSA system. There have been too many examples of constituents who have received as many as four letters in one week from the CSA quoting different amounts of assessment. Telephone numbers of the CSA staff are hard to come by, and the same person never deals with a case on two consecutive occasions. The Minister has a great deal to tackle, and he will say that the new system is wonderful. However, it has a lot of catching up to do.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I can fit both hon. Members in if they take only five minutes each; otherwise, only one of them will be able to speak.
§ Mr. John MacDougall (Central Fife)As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall follow your good advice. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing this debate. It is a welcome opportunity to debate the CSA. Many hon. Members have offered the hon. Gentleman our congratulations, but have also offered sympathy to the Minister, who inherited a major problem, albeit not one of the Government's making.
After the parents split up, they move on in their lives, and the child is left behind. Every child has the right to a decent start in life, whether or not the parents live together. Children are entitled to care and support and to their parents taking sensible responsibility for them.
83WH The initial legislation, although well intended, has resulted in the major problems that have been highlighted today.
The situation is not all doom and gloom—the Government have made many improvements to the initial legislation. The number of non-resident parents paying all that they owe has almost doubled, while the overall case load has also nearly doubled, to 1 million. The number of no-payers has been almost halved, ensuring that more children are getting the money that they deserve. It used to be the case that poor families—nearly 40 per cent. of the CSA case load—had 100 per cent. of any maintenance collected knocked off their benefit. Once the reforms take hold, such families will be able to keep up to £10 per week.
Another great benefit is that the time taken to get the money to the child has been reduced. The research that I carried out has shown that processing times have been cut by around two thirds, from an average of 20 weeks to six to eight weeks. However, it has been made clear today that the CSA still has its problems and that those must be tackled. In the summer, I had worthwhile and serious discussions with Baroness Hollis, and I appreciate the moves that the Government have made to try to correct many of those problems.
In my constituency, Central Fife, the CSA has had major failures in dealing with certain problems, of which I shall highlight one or two, while keeping within my five-minute limit. One case concerned a grandmother who was the carer of three children and was receiving no financial support from her daughter or son-in-law. Another concerned a lady with learning difficulties whose father deals with her correspondence. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the child's father was not earning. Several of my constituents have ex-partners who have moved from job to job faster than the CSA could catch up with them, both north and south of the border. The CSA has particular difficulty in dealing with that issue. Although I would not defend any form of incompetence, I appreciate the difficulties that CSA staff face in trying to achieve the standards that many of them would wish to accomplish.
Another case was that of a lady whose ex-partner kept giving false information to the CSA. I suggest that not everyone tells the truth when they are pursued by the CSA. A few hon. Members have highlighted individual cases concerning regular payments. My main concern is the time taken to complete some cases. Hon. Members have also made the point that the agency concentrates on cases that are easy to resolve and leaves more difficult cases behind. That creates serious problems for those cases, and affects children. The main union for CSA staff admits that the CSA has fallen behind in making payments. The National Audit Office says that there remains a
continuing high level of errors in maintenance assessments".There have been cases recently where the court ruled that women and their children had not been offered the level of financial support that they deserved because of self-assessment for the self-employed. Problems have arisen from a system that was well intended when it was introduced, but unless we continue to make improvements to it, children will suffer from that lack of attention. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to 84WH what has been said in the debate. I appreciate the Government's efforts, but hope that we can make improvements.
§ Mr. John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing this important and timely debate. We need better management of case loads. Hardware and software systems are crucial to concluding cases, and we need proper systems to assist staff and to ensure that the problems that have been raised today do not continue. I shall not raise individual cases; I shall refer them to the Minister and hope for a proper response.
When I visited Falkirk, I was struck by the staff's commitment to their work. The problem is that there has been a huge turnover of staff, so there is little continuity or experience in dealing with case loads. We need to do something to retain staff, and to ensure that they can conclude our constituents' cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) mentioned the helpline. I welcome it and use it often, but it should not be an excuse for the CSA failing to keep people updated or informed once an MP has intervened. Our intervention should be complementary and supplementary to a constituent's case, and should not be an excuse not to inform people.
The issues of deliberate unemployment and self-employment have been raised. Those issues need special consideration, and I appeal to the Minister to speak to the agency about a new approach to them. The situation is not good enough, and we need to keep up the pressure.
It has been suggested that our constituents could train staff at the CSA in how to track people down. That might provide additional work for our constituents, who are far better at it and get results quicker. We should listen to their criticisms, as they have first-hand experience of how to do that successfully.
We cannot allow the transfer of old cases to the new system to drag on much longer. People have suffered quietly, but it is never-ending. I appeal to the Minister to make that a priority. People should feel confident that they will be treated as a priority in the new system.
I am happy with interim assessments, but they should not excuse a lack of vigilance thereafter. They should not mean that people are no longer treated as a priority, nor should they ever be an excuse for not maintaining pressure to settle cases properly. We need a vigilant approach to conclude matters.
In the cases that I have dealt with, I have found that people criticised, rightly, a lack of reporting back about progress or lack of progress. People need to be updated regularly. There should be a recall system in which cases are systematically brought up, for example after four, five or six weeks, when it is clearly time to respond.
If we can tackle the issues that have been mentioned and the failings that have rightly been criticised today, we can collectively make a major improvement in the CSA and thereafter in the lives of our constituents who deal with the agency.
§ Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing the debate and on his well researched contribution. More than 10 Members have spoken or intervened in the debate, and I am sure that they would want to thank him for being so unselfish and concise at the start. That has enabled so many of us to reflect our concerns about the system, and the Chamber is grateful to him.
At the outset, the hon. Member for Poole raised the issue that particularly concerned him—the delay in implementation of the new computer. As was mentioned briefly by the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall), that has an important practical consequence, which is that lone parents on income support on the old system are still having pounds of maintenance taken off them and cannot keep the £10. Lone parents on the new system are allowed to keep that £10, so why can that not be changed immediately? Why should a lone parent on the new system get 10 quid, while the woman living next door, whom the CSA has not managed to deal with yet, does not?
That is a gross injustice, and every week that the computer system is delayed is another week that another woman misses out on £10 for her children. That cannot be right. The Government will say that the change is part of a package, but it is not. It is entirely separate and could be implemented tomorrow if they wanted to, but they simply want to save the money. The Government should stop holding on to that money, which should be for the welfare of children.
A wide range of issues has been raised. The MPs' hotline was mentioned, and I want to put on record my appreciation of its staff, especially in Plymouth. I deal with them most frequently and am now on first-name terms. Many of them are old friends who do a good job, but, in the nicest possible way, I want to see them made redundant. I want the public to receive a service that means that they do not need to approach any of us to resolve problems. Perhaps one day that will happen.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) raised the important issue of people whose cases are closed and who then come back on to the new system, with no phasing and a big hike in maintenance. I have raised that point more than once with the Secretary of State during oral questions, and only last week I raised it with the Minister during a Statutory Instrument Committee on the Child Support Agency. I was given a patronising brush-off, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire no doubt had, as he said that he had raised the point with the Department but been fobbed off. I hope that we are not fobbed off today.
The fact that several hon. Members are raising the matter should make the Department reconsider whether that is happening, how much it is happening and whether people are fixing the system. We have heard that many people know how to get round the system, so I hope that the Minister will open his eyes to what is really happening, not just what is written in his brief.
We have heard about some terrible cases. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned £60,000 arrears, and it is breathtaking that the situation could get to that stage and that the agency took nine months to visit someone when the parent with care had already provided information. There were several 86WH themes in today's contributions, and one was that the CSA is turning many mothers into private detectives, which cannot be right. It is not in the interests or welfare of children or mothers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said, the CSA is certainly not part of the healing process.
When it is given information, the CSA should be proactive, rather than telling people to do the work for it and, after six or nine months, perhaps acting on it. It is simply not good enough. The idea of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) of a routine prodding of cases that have gone quiet is an interesting one. I hope the Minister will consider how it could be applied in practice.
The hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), who had to leave, mentioned forms that are lost and letters that are simply ignored. I am struck by the fact that the CSA sends a letter and, if nothing happens, it sends another one. How long does that go on for? The CSA must be more proactive, rather than sitting and waiting for someone to push. When we intervene, cases go to the top of the pile, but it should not have to be like that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, to his credit, has been a persistent critic of the CSA and its failure to recognise that many people are working the system and not providing accurate information. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said that money went into the CSA, but the CSA could not find it. That is not rocket science, and it should be straightforward to put proper procedures in place.
Is the company that provided the computer system paying substantial penalty sums to the Government for its abject failure? The theory behind the private finance initiative and the reason for contracting out all these computer systems was that the lean, mean private sector would deliver, on time and to budget, a quality service that the stale old public sector could not. Well, it ain't happening. We want to know whether these companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride. I understand that the Treasury has decided not to outsource any more Government IT projects because they have all been such abject failures. Will the Minister think again when the contract comes up for renewal, and tell us whether EDS has done a good enough job to deserve a new contract involving a great deal of taxpayers' money?
My hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) rightly pointed out how the CSA can divide families, and how people can receive confusing and inconsistent information. All of us know of cases in which people received four letters a day, let alone a week, with different maintenance assessments, yet we are told, "It's the computer." All I can say is that that computer has a lot to answer for.
We often ring the MPs' hotline, and are told that the computer is down. Does the Minister know why the computer is always down? If so, will he tell us? What is going on? On one occasion when we rang the MPs' hotline, we said that one of our constituents wanted a face-to-face encounter with someone who would talk through the situation with them, and we received a letter from the CSA saying that staff were so busy trying to sort out the computer that they were cutting back on seeing real people face to face. This is not a triumphant new system that has been introduced effectively, but a shambles.
87WH I am not sure what the parliamentary equivalent is of the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion at the end of his speech, but are the Government putting real pressure on the CSA and on the computer company to get them to perform? They have let down parents as well as the taxpayer.
It is important that the Minister has plenty of time to respond to the wide range of criticisms that we have heard today, so I shall conclude my remarks. We have heard some important statements about how the CSA needs to be proactive and needs not to divide families, but to do the work that enables new families to get started and to have a secure source of income so that the children in particular benefit, not just the parents. I hope the Minister is throwing his weight around, especially with the computer company, so that the situation is sorted out. It is about time that it was.
§ Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe)I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on his introductory remarks, which were brief but covered a wide range of issues. The debate has been extremely useful. With the exception of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who made a broader speech reflecting his long-held interest in the workings of the Child Support Agency, hon. Members understandably tended to concentrate on human stories of difficulty, grief and heartache, to which the Minister will doubtless want to respond.
I echo the remarks made by the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) by paying tribute to the CSA staff, who are working very hard in difficult circumstances. I believe they have the highest rates of sickness of any staff group working under the general umbrella of the Department for Work and Pensions.
Like other hon. Members, I could cite specific constituency cases—naturally, I brought a file with me. However, I want to stand back from all the grief, heartache and difficulties that hon. Members have rightly described, and probe the Minister about the current state of affairs at the CSA. I hope to leave him with a little time to reply. I also want to ask him some questions, and would be grateful if he could confirm that he will respond in writing to any questions that he does not have time to answer in debate. I see the Minister nodding.
We all acknowledge that the CSA has a long history of difficulties, not all of which can be blamed on the present Government and the Minister. However, a general theme has arisen from the debate. Many of our constituents, and certainly many hon. Members, are asking whether the CSA runs the computers that deliver the service, or whether we have reached the point where the computers are running the CSA, which is not delivering the service that all of us, including the Minister, would like. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), put it to Doug Smith, the chief executive of the CSA, when he gave evidence last July:
What frustrates us a lot … is how we try to understand what is really going on. Huge sums of public money are involved. Ministers blame computer engineers; engineers blame Ministers 88WH and civil servants; project directors come and go and the problems continue… The departmental evidence that we received in advance of this session tells a completely different story from that which comes from the trade union.My hon. Friend the Member for Poole took us through the history of the implementation of the new system, so I shall not go over that again. We know that 1.1 million cases are awaiting transfer from the old rules to the new scheme, so I shall first ask the Minister about uncollected maintenance owed to resident parents—some £2.7 billion in total. Of that, £398 million is described as collectable, so by what date does the Minister believe that the money will be collected and parents will be paid? The sum of £384 million is described as possibly uncollectable. I have never been sure what possible means in this context, but how much of that debt does the Minister believe will be collected, and by when? The bulk of the £2.7 billion—£1.9 billion—is described as probably uncollectable. Again, I am unsure of the difference between probable and possible in this context, but how much of that debt will be collected, by when, and when will parents be paid?On 2 July, Mr. Smith told the Select Committee:
The software required for bulk migration of cases from the old system to the new system was intended to be delivered … by EDS during the summer of this year. It is now clear that that will not be delivered … until the end of this year. The software … needed to do bulk conversions of existing assessments … was intended to be available …and the autumn of this year. It is now clear that that will not be available until the spring of next year.Is the software for bulk migration on target for the revised delivery timetable, and if not, when will it be delivered? Is delivery of the software for bulk conversions on target for next spring, and if not, when will it be delivered?In short, when will old cases be transferred to the new scheme? That has been a common theme of the debate. Can the Minister explain—there is some confusion—on what basis the 1.1 million old cases will be prioritised? In what order will they be dealt with?
The Minister is aware that the Public and Commercial Services Union paints a grim picture of the computer problems to which hon. Members referred. It says that the electronic management system is not reliable. Members of staff processing cases sometimes see them disappear from the screen and do not know when they will be back. There are difficulties with the telephone system and so on.
When Doug Smith gave evidence to the Select Committee, the Chairman asked him whether it was the case that in the previous month—June—the CSA had carried out maintenance calculations on only 20 per cent. of its case load. Mr. Smith confirmed that that was correct. What is the figure for the months since July? The Minister knows that many hon. Members have claimed that it now costs the CSA 20 per cent. more to process each claim. Is that correct? If not, what is the figure and how long does it take to process each case?
Let us assume that the CSA carries out maintenance calculations on only 20 per cent. of its case load each month, and that it costs the CSA roughly 20 per cent. more to process each claim. As I understand it, the 89WH CSA plans a 20 per cent. reduction in costs as a consequence of moving to the new system, partly by reducing its head count by 1,600. I further note that Doug Smith told the Select Committee:
I do not pretend that we do not have an increasing workload in hand.He used a double negative, but what he meant is pretty clear. How does the CSA reconcile reducing a 20 per cent. or so loss of productivity—indeed, it is trying to make productivity gains—at a time when the work load is increasing, with simultaneously reducing the number of staff? What will the productivity gains be, and by when will they be made?Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no reduction in the number of staff working on enforcement? If there is an increase in the number of such staff, how large will it be, and by when will it be delivered? On enforcement, can the Minister confirm that only two driving licences have been removed from non-paying parents as a result of action by the CSA? If not two, what is the new figure? If, as I believe, this form of enforcement is so effective that in nine out of 11 cases that went to court, non-paying parents actually paid, why have not more people been prosecuted? To allow the Minister time to answer all these points, I conclude by quoting Doug Smith, who said on 2 July that
there is a big difference between a failed computer system and a computer system that has more teething problems than we expected. I accept that this may be seen as a piece of sophistry.Those who feel that they are victims of the continuing problems at the CSA will, doubtless, want the Minister to reply to all these points in the time that he has, or in writing.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and others for their contributions to the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing it as the subject is important to the lives of so many parents and children. The interest of the hon. Member for Poole in this subject is newly found as, only two weeks ago, he had an opportunity to discuss the matter but rushed in and told the relevant Committee:
Conservative Members have other things on our minds today, which is why the Front-Bench spokesman is absent."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 29 October 2003; c. 6.]He then left the Committee—we were discussing improvements to the child support system—and dashed out of the room. What was so important that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had to discuss? On that Wednesday two weeks ago, their concerns were not with PWCs, NRPs or the CSA, but with another three letters: IDS.I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment and on raising the issue. We will take every opportunity to discuss how to ensure that children get the support that they deserve and need. That is why we are trying to ensure that the child support system works properly. We have had a good and worthwhile debate, with contributions from many hon. Members, some of 90WH whom introduced constituency cases. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, and have also had to argue cases on behalf of my constituents.
However, I should like to remind the Committee how far we have come in changing the child support system. When we took office in 1997, we inherited a system that most people agreed was failing and inadequate. At that time, the taxpayer was supporting 1.8 million children, 70 per cent. of lone parents on income support were seeking to avoid a child maintenance application, and a third of all child support assessments took more than six months to make. The following year, we issued the Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" and, after extensive consultation, we concluded that the only way to deliver child support effectively was a totally radical change in the system. We decided that we needed not just legislative change but change to IT support in the CSA and to the agency's culture.
I am not going to pretend that I am satisfied with the progress made so far—neither are ministerial colleagues. We shall continue to press for improvements in the delivery of child support, especially in the way that the computer system operates. That is such an integral part of the system. Its failures frustrate not only our constituents and hon. Members but the people who work hard within the CSA. There have been improvements in the delivery of child support, even under the old system. From 3 March 2003, we have started to migrate new and linked cases on to the new and much simpler system of assessment. Since then, owing to problems with the computer system, the service that we have given to some agency clients has still fallen well short of what they are entitled to receive, and for that I should like to offer my unreserved apologies.
It is perhaps difficult, however, for hon. Members to recognise the speed with which the improvements are being made. It is a fact of life that constituents rarely come to us to tell us when things are going well, but there is good news. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and others claimed that the system is irreparable and suggested that we should perhaps return to the old court system, but many hon. Members will remember how much of a lottery that system of providing maintenance was. I ask the hon. Gentleman and others to recognise that the system is now clearing thousands of cases each week. Just over 45,500 new scheme maintenance calculations have already been made, around 10,500 non-resident parents have started to pay maintenance and around 6,000 parents with care have started to get the child maintenance premium income disregard in their benefit.
I should like to answer the allegation that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made and say that the decision not to move all parents with care on to the child maintenance premium immediately is nothing to do with an intention to save money. It is impossible for us administratively to make that change in isolation from the overall changes in the system. For the first time, parents with care are seeing improvements in both the level of maintenance and how it is paid. The CSA is already beginning to make a significant contribution to our important target, which is central to everything that the Government are doing, first to reduce and then to eliminate child poverty in this country.
91WH If I do not have an opportunity in the few minutes available to me to answer each of the points that hon. Members have raised, I shall be happy to write to them. Similarly, it is difficult in a debate such as this to respond to constituency cases that have been raised, but if hon. Members write to me, I shall ensure that they get a reply to their concerns.
The hon. Member for Colchester suggested that dissatisfaction with the system is such that we should perhaps return to another system altogether—not use the new child support system and not go back to the old child support, but sweep it all away and go back to the courts. As I said, that would create such hardship, anxiety and heartache for parents with care and nonresident parents that what we have heard in this morning's debate would seem as nothing in comparison.
The hon. Member for Poole raised his concerns about the computer system, as did other hon. Members. However, we must recognise that the system is new and has a considerable job to do, which is to translate the old cases into the new system. It also has to deal with 2 million cases overall—non-resident parents and parents with care. Inevitably, making the system work effectively is a massive task, but it is not doing so to our satisfaction now. To ensure that the system improves, we are working closely with EDS, which has introduced new management structures and made new investment. The hon. Member for Northavon asked whether penalties were built into the system. The answer is yes, penalties are built in: we have the power in the contracts to withhold payments and we are doing so to ensure that the system operates in a way we would all like.
The hon. Member for Poole and others asked about the timing for transferring people to the new system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State previously made it clear that we cannot and will not transfer the old cases on to the new system until we are certain that the computer system and the IT are working effectively, and I reiterate that now. If we were to do that, we would be letting down both the parents with care of their children and the non-resident parents. We must be certain that the system is working properly before we make that change.
As hon. Members will know, there is a set of transitional arrangements to ensure that as we migrate people from the old system to the new one both parents have the opportunity to plan their arrangements, and to take account of the changes in their responsibilities.
The hon. Member for Poole also referred to an assumption that the CSA treats non-resident parents as "second-class citizens". The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) also suggested that the agency operated in a one-sided way. I reassure hon. Members that the agency works in an even-handed way. In everything that it does, it recognises that it has a responsibility both to the nonresident parent and to the parent with care. If there are circumstances in which hon. Members feel that that is 92WH not the case, I hope that they will write to me about them, so that I can investigate any allegations of anything less than even-handedness.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) expressed disappointment about how the system has operated so far. Ministers share that disappointment. He raised issues about particular cases in his constituency, and I hope that we can meet, in the not-too-distant future, to discuss some of them. He also made the point, as did other hon. Members, that there have been teething problems with the telephony and computer systems. We recognise that those problems exist, and in trying to iron them out have ensured that they are dealt with at the highest levels in BT Syntegra and EDS.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) raised a case to which he kindly drew my attention in advance of the debate. In such cases as that, in which non-resident parents attempt to evade their financial responsibility by moving employment or address frequently, it is difficult for the agency to trace them. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will stress to the agency the necessity of continuing the tracing process, not only in that case but in other cases raised by hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) raised the issue of a person who was residing outside the UK. If a person is genuinely resident outside the UK, the CSA has no jurisdiction. However, there will be cases—I think he was suggesting that that was one—in which there is uncertainty about whether the person resides in the UK. We will follow up that particular case.
Several hon. Members raised the general issue of self-employed non-resident parents. We recognise, as do hon. Members, that it is difficult for the agency to enforce responsibilities on individuals who are self-employed. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) highlighted that issue. To put it in context, the latest estimates show that around 6 per cent. of all child support non-resident parents are self-employed, and that compliance by self-employed nonresident parents is 67 per cent. However, we keep that issue under review.
In the time available, it is not possible for me to respond to every point raised by hon. Members in this good and worthwhile debate. I know that we all raise the issues because of concern for our constituents, but also to make sure that children receive the support they deserve and need. We are doing everything we can to improve the way in which the CSA operates. I pay tribute to the staff of the CSA, as other hon. Members have, for the way in which they show commitment and professionalism to make the system work. Our main focus, and that of hon. Members who have spoken today, is the children, who deserve the highest priority.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Before I call the next debate, I congratulate all hon. Members on being so succinct and to the point during the debate, which enabled everybody to contribute.