HL Deb 26 July 1994 vol 557 cc86-90WA
Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the statement on page 5 of the Annual Report of the Child Support Agency that "many absent parents were not complying in full with the assessments we made", how many refunds are involved, and whether they are able to make an estimate of what proportion were the result of wilful non-compliance and what proportion were the result of inability to pay.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the Chief Executive. She will write to the noble Earl.

Letter to Earl Russell from the Business Development Director, the Child Support Agency, Mr. J. T. Hughes, dated 26th July 1994:

In her absence, the Chief Executive, Mrs. Hepplewhite, has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary Question about absent parents who do not comply in full with the assessments made by the Child Support Agency.

The agency has no firm information on the proportions of wilful non-compliance and inability to pay. However, assessments are based on a formula which is designed to take account of ability to pay, although where an absent parent does not co-operate in supplying information, a child support officer will make an interim maintenance assessment and in so doing will not necessarily be aware of the absent parent's circumstances. In those cases, it is clearly in the absent parent's interest to co-operate as soon as possible to facilitate a full assessment.

I hope this reply is helpful.

Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the statement on page 11 of the Annual Report of the Child Support Agency that 65,000 parents with care were investigated to see whether there was good cause for them not to provide details to the agency, how many of that total came off benefit before any resolution of the question had been reached.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the Chief Executive. She will write to the noble Lord.

Letter to Earl Russell from the Business Development Director of the Child Support Agency, Mr. J. T. Hughes, dated 26th July 1994:

In her absence, the Chief Executive, Mrs. Hepplewhite, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of parents with care who cease to claim benefit before a decision is reached on a good cause.

In the year 1993–94 54,000 parents with care withdrew their applications for maintenance before their case had been assessed. This total includes those who cease to claim benefit before a decision on good cause was reached. However, it also includes other cases such as those where parent started work or was reconciled with their partner and specific information on why individual claims were withdrawn is not available.

I hope this reply is helpful.

Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, further to the statement on page 2 of the Annual Report of the Child Support Agency that the previous system of maintenance through the courts was "because discretionary, inconsistent", they will justify this statement and state whether it represents their policy.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

Before April 1993, child maintenance was determined by a variety of courts, or agreed with the absent parent by local offices of the Department of Social Security. As a result, there were inconsistent decisions about how much maintenance should be paid and amounts varied widely for people in similar circumstances.

The new child support system was introduced to improve this situation. The use of a standard formula produces assessments which are consistent and predictable while taking account of a wide range of relevant circumstances of the individuals concerned.

Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether further to the statement on page 4 of the Annual Report of the Child Support Agency that "some of the key assumptions in the Report were too optimistic" they will note which assumptions are referred to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

The Child Support Agency was a new business, operating under a new legislation, with untried information technology systems and many new staff and management. There were no historical data on which to base a full set of realistic performance targets. A limited range of targets were set, based on a number of assumptions about, for example, the speed at which maintenance assessments could be completed and the ease with which necessary information could be obtained.

In the event, the process was slower, and in many cases involved more exchanges of correspondence, than had been anticipated.

Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, further to the statement on page 11 of the Annual Report of the Child Support Agency that "fewer than 700 had been referred to the Benefits Agency for a reduction in benefit", they, the Child Support Agency or the Benefits Agency have any information on the subsequent history of these people.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I regret that neither the Benefits Agency nor the Child Support Agency has such information.

Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many complaints of fraud have been made by parents subject to the Child Support Act 1991.

(a) by absent parents against caring parents; (b) by caring parents against absent parents; and what action has followed from these complaints.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

The information requested is not recorded. As an intermediary between two parties in the arrangement of child maintenance, the Child Support Agency has no direct role in the prevention of fraud, although, if social security benefits are in payment and a potential fraud against the benefits system is alleged, relevant information is passed to the Benefits Agency or Employment Services to investigate.

If an allegation of misrepresentation is made which does not involve the incorrect payment of a social security benefit, then the child support officer will consider whether there is sufficient evidence to review the maintenance assessment.