HC Deb 21 July 1994 vol 247 cc615-8W
Mr. Frank Field

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to invite claims for maintenance from the lone parents who have been on income support since before April last year following his announcement of the reordering of the Child Support Agency's priorities by which they will not now be dealt with as was originally planned.

Mr. Burt

The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from J. T. Hughes to Mr. Frank Field, dated 21 July 1994: In her absence, the Chief Executive, Mrs. Hepplewhite has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's take on stategy in relation to parents with care who were already receiving Income Support in April 1993. As explained in "The First Two Years", it is planned to reduce the take-on of 100,000 existing income support cases from 1994–95 to 1995–96 in order to allow the Agency to concentrate on clearing its backlog of work. It is envisaged that the 100,000 cases so deferred will be taken on in the first half of 1995–96. This deferral will not affect the commitment given by Ministers to provide sympathetic consideration to requests by individual parents who wish their application to be dealt with early. In April and May the Agency accepted 2,400 such requests. I hope that this reply is helpful.

Mr. Bradley

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the results of the six areas of performance activity monitored by the Child Support Agency during 1993–94, as mentioned in paragraph 6.3 of the agency's business plan for that year.

Mr. Burt

The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from J. T. Hughes to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 21 July 1994: In her absence, the Chief Executive, Mrs. Hepplewhite has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the areas of performance monitored by the Child Support Agency. Information on the time taken to clear applications for maintenance was contained on page 5 of the Agency's combined annual report and business plan—the first two years. In the five other areas selected for performance monitoring insufficient cases were processed and insufficient data collected to provide a meaningful indication of the standard of service in these areas. The Agency has taken action to improve its information systems and to collect the data required to enable an expanded range of targets to be considered for 1995–96. I hope that this reply is helpful.

Mr. Jonathan Evans

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many deductions from earnings orders were made by the Child Support Agency in the year 1993–94; and what proportion of these were in relation to interim assessments.

Mr. Burt

The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to my hon. Friend.

Letter from J. T. Hughes to Mr. Jonathan Evans dated 21 July 1994: In her absence, the Chief Executive, Mrs. Hepplewhite has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about deduction from earnings orders. In the year 1993–94, 2,200 deductions from earnings orders were made by the Child Support Agency. I regret that this number cannot be split between those orders issued in respect of interim maintenance assessments and full maintenance assessments. It may help if I explain that until nearly the end of the year there were no powers in the child support legislation that would allow the agency to impose a Deductions from Earnings Order, normally the first course of action where payment is not being made to the parent with care, in cases in which an Interim Maintenance Assessment has been made. Regulations that gave the Agency powers to do this came into effect on 7 February 1994. I can confirm, however, that the Agency now gathers such information and figures for the current year will become available in August. I hope that this reply is helpful.

Mr. Bradley

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the maintenance with which the Child Support Agency had an involvement was(a) child maintenance assessed by the agency but paid direct between parents, (b) child maintenance assessed and collected by the agency, (c) child maintenance paid where there had been no assessment from the agency and (d) other maintenance payments.

Mr. Burt

The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from J. T. Hughes to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 21 July 1994: In her absence, the Chief Executive, Mrs. Hepplewhite has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the amount of child maintenance collected by the Child Support Agency. For the period April 1993 to March 1994 inclusive, maintenance administered by the Agency totalled £312 million. Of this, £1.9 million was assessed by the Agency and paid direct between parents and £13.1 million was assessed and paid through the Agency collection service. The remaining £297 million related to cases administered by the Agency arising from pre-Agency arrangements. There were no other maintenance payments collected. I hope this reply is helpful.

Mr. Jonathan Evans

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of(a) the number of absent parents who are in arrears with child support payments and (b) the collective amount of maintenance currently outstanding;

(2) how many arrears notices were served by the Child Support Agency in its first year of operation;

(3) how many liability orders were issued by the Child Support Agency in 1993–94.

Mr. Burt

The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to my hon. Friend.

Letter from J. T Hughes to Mr. Jonathan Evans, dated 21 July 1994: In her absence, the Chief Executive, Mrs. Hepplewhite has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about arrears notices, liability orders and maintenance outstanding. I regret that validated data on accounts in arrears is not currently available. The Child Support Computer System, however, is being upgraded to provide additional information. Although the specific information you request about arrears notices is not available, additional information provided by the upgraded system will indicate those cases in which such orders will have been issued. It is estimated that about 160 liability orders had been referred to the courts by the end of March 1994. I hope this reply is helpful.

Mr. Flynn

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many requests for maintenance review on the grounds of change of circumstances were dealt with by the Child Support Agency in its first year; and how many such requests were still outstanding at year end;

(2) how many requests for review of a decision made by a child support officer were decided during 1993–94; and how many such decisions were outstanding at year end.

Mr. Burt

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on 17 May 1994 at column526.

Mr. Flynn

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what period was covered by the most recent annual reviews of individual child support assessments.

Mr. Burt

Individual assessments are reviewed when they have been in force for 52 weeks; the review will be completed as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of that period.

Mr. Chidgey

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what statutory duties of a child support officer he claims a discretion to exercise; and what is the legal basis for this discretion;

(2) which of his statutory duties a child support officer has discretion to exercise; and what is the legal basis for this discretion.

Mr. Burt

The Child Support Act 1991 confers statutory duties on the Secretary of State. It also confers statutory duties on independent, adjudicating officers, the child support officers. Decisions taken by CSOs cannot be varied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; CSOs cannot take decisions in those areas which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

The Act specifies where a discretionary power exists and whether the Secretary of State or a CSO should exercise that power. The areas in which the Secretary of State has discretion relate mainly to the requirement on a parent with care to authorise the Secretary of State to take action to pursue maintenance and to the collection and enforcement of maintenance, including whether to collect and enforce and the method of collection and enforcement. The areas in which CSOs have discretion are mainly in the making of interim maintenance assessments and reduced benefit directions.