§ Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Child Support Agency is able to resolve disputes about whether it has or has not received maintenance payments by examination of its own bank records.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Miss Ann Chant, She will write to the noble Lord.
Letter to Earl Russell from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, Miss Ann Chant, dated 1st April 1996.
I am replying to your parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about maintenance payments received by the Child Support Agency.
The agency is indeed able to resolve disputes about maintenance payments received by reference to its own records.
The agency's Client Funds Group has responsibility for recording the Client Funds Bank Account to the Agency's Child Support Computer System on a daily basis. Consequently Client Funds Group know exactly what funds have, or have not, been lodged in the account, should a dispute arise.
I hope this is helpful.
§ Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the third report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency) Appendix 1(a), whether they will publish a breakdown, distinguishing the actual from the optative, of Miss Ann Chant's statement that "during its first three years the Agency expects that it will have … saved the taxpayer £1.4 billion in reduced social security expenditure", making clear whether the figure is gross or net of administrative costs incurred by the Child Support Agency and the Department of Social Security, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and other public bodies.
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the noble Lord.
Letter to Earl Russell from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, Miss Ann Chant, dated 1st April 1996.
I am replying to your parliamentary Question to Her Majesty's Government about savings in social security 27WA expenditure resulting from the actions of the Child Support Agency.
The £1.4 billion in reduced social security expenditure to which I have referred is taken from the sum of the benefit savings achieved in the first two years of the agency's operations, together with the forecast to be achieved in the current year. The exact outturn for 1995/96 will not be known until after the end of the financial year.
Year Benefit savings/Forecast Savings achieved Agency administrative costs £ million £ million £ million 1993/94 530 418 139 1994/95 460 479 192 1995/961 510 510 195 Total 1,500 1,407 526 1Information provided is a projection to year end. It assumes that the benefit savings forecast set is achieved and that there is no variance in the administrative budget.
§ Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to Section 7 of the third report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency, why cases of the type reported where the Child Support Agency unduly delayed payment received from the absent parent to the parent with care are not routinely discovered by the audit of the Child Support Agency's accounts, and what happens to the interest received on the money pending such delay.
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the noble Lord.
Letter to Earl Russell from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, Miss Ann Chant, dated 1st April 1996.
I am replying to your parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about payments of maintenance made to the Child Support Agency.
The Secretary of State has set the agency a target of 90 per cent. of all payments to be made to the parent with care within 10 working days of receipt from the absent parent. The agency is currently achieving 97 per cent. Within the outstanding 3 per cent. are all the instruments of payment which have not been honoured.
In the few cases where undue delay arises between transferring a maintenance payment from the Absent Parent (AP) to the Parent With Care (PWC), it is indeed the agency's policy to identify such cases from its records and make an interest payment to the PWC subject to fulfilling certain criteria.
These are where it has taken longer than 28 days to pass on the payment to the PWC, where the amount of maintenance exceeds £33.33 and where the interest due to the PWC exceeds £5.00. This policy relates to such situations from 1.4.95 when the agency's bank commenced paying interst for funds on deposit. Prior to 1.4.95 the agency did not receive interest from the bank for funds deposited. Instead it had been agreed that the agency would not be charged for its transactions.
28WAThe savings in benefit referred to are without any deductions for administrative costs; these do not come out of the social security benefit budget.
Savings in benefit expenditure for the first two years of the agency and the forecast for 1995/96, together with the agency's total administrative costs for each of the three years of its operations are shown on the attached sheet.
I hope this is helpful.
The first payments under these new arrangements were processed on 19th March 1996.
I hope this is helpful.
§ Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the third report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency) Appendix 1(c), how Miss Ann Chant's estimate that the agency "has impacted on the lives of over six million adults since its formation" was arrived at.'
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the noble Lord.
Letter to Earl Russell from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, Miss Ann Chant, dated 1st April 1996.
I am replying to your parliamentary Question to Her Majesty's Government about the impact of the Child Support Agency on people's lives.
The Child Support Agency has been involved with 1.6 million cases. Each of these involves a parent with care and at least one absent parent. In addition, new partners of either or both clients are involved.
My estimate that the Child Support Agency has had an effect on the lives of 6 million adults is therefore quite reasonable.
I hope this is helpful.
§ Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the third report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency) Section 1(i), whether they accept the Commissioner's findings on deduction from earnings orders, that "it is a common experience that it is difficult to persuade the CSA that such an order is not needed once it has been imposed".
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief 29WA Executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the noble Lord.
Letter to Earl Russell from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, Miss Ann Chant, dated 1st April 1996:
I am replying to your parliamentary Question to Her Majesty's Government concerning deductions from earnings orders.
The Child Support Agency accepts the commissioner's comments on the discharge of deductions from earnings orders: these findings reflect the current and correct application of the Child Support Regulations by the agency.
The circumstances in which a properly imposed deductions from earnings order may be discharged are governed by the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations. Where an effective order satisfies the procedures, jurisdiction and information requirements of these regulations, the agency must consider the question of whether another form of payment would be more effective.
Deductions from earnings orders are a particularly effective means of ensuring that parental responsibilities are met and the parent with care receives regular maintenance without disruption. However, they are only imposed as a last resort when all other voluntary means of securing payment of legally-due child maintenance have failed. Before an order is imposed, the absent parent is notified of the agency's ability to pursue this course of action. At this stage, the absent parent may approach the agency and propose an alternative method of paying maintenance.
It is only when the agency is satisfied that another, more effective method of securing maintenance is not readily available that a deductions from earnings order will be imposed. The commissioner's findings on the experience of absent parents are a consequence of this.
I hope this is helpful.
§ Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the third report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency), whether, as a matter of routine, they can arrange for the Benefits Agency to be notified of the sums of maintenance actually received by parents with care, rather than of sums assessed but not necessarily paid.
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the noble Lord.
Letter to Earl Russell from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, Miss Ann Chant, dated 1st April 1996.
I am replying to your parliamentary Question to Her Majesty's Government concerning the possibility of notifying the Benefits Agency of the amount of maintenance actually paid.
Where maintenance does not extinguish income support entitlement, the agency normally arranges to 30WA collect child support maintenance unless full and regular payments are made directly to the parent with care (PWC). This ensures that the PWC will receive full income support entitlement and a consistent income each week, even where maintenance is not paid.
Where these arrangements do not apply, for example where maintenance extinguishes entitlement to income support, routinely notifying the Benefits Agency of the amount of maintenance actually paid would not improve the PWC's position. Income Support rules mean that, regardless of any notification, the PWC would still need to make a repeat claim whenever their maintenance fell below a certain level. Extra Child Support Agency intervention would therefore involve costly extra administrative work for few tangible benefits. For this reason, the agency has no plans to introduce this measure once payments of maintenance have started.
However, notification of the amount of maintenance due when a case is first assessed can lead to income support ceasing before the first payment of maintenance is even received. At present the Benefits Agency are alerted to the sum due as soon as the assessment is completed so there is a real risk that if payment is not subsequently received the PWC is inconvenienced and has to reclaim income support. The agency is currently piloting a new arrangement to avoid this problem. This is intended to ensure that initial income support entitlement is not affected until payment has actually commenced.
I hope this is helpful.
§ Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the third report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency), whether the Child Support Agency can improve its procedures for logging the receipt of correspondence and telephone messages; and
Further to the third report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency), whether they agree that the errors listed in that report reveal an excessive reliance by the Child Support Agency on the word processor and the standard letter, rather than on individual correspondence.
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the noble Lord.
Letter to Earl Russell from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, Miss Ann Chant, dated 1st April 1996.
I am replying to your parliamentary Question to Her Majesty's Government about Child Support Agency procedures for logging incoming telephone calls and mail, and the use of standard letters and word processors.
The agency has already made considerable improvements in the handling and logging of incoming mail and telephone calls.
31WAThe current procedures and guidance on incoming mail include a manual which provides Child Support Agency Centre (CSAC) staff with written instructions on the handling of written correspondence received via the Royal Mail or the DSS internal courier service. It contains specific instructions on the logging of recorded delivery mail, including items of value and monetary payments of child support maintenance. Child Support Agency area staff (in field offices), refer to the Child Support Manual for instructions on handling written correspondence referred to them by the Benefits Agency post opening team.
In addition, each CSAC has a team whose job it is to check all correspondence, excluding letters to specific persons, for urgent items which, once identified, are recorded on the Child Support Computer System (CSCS) before being sent to the appropriate section to action. The team has a target to distribute incoming mail to the appropriate section within 24 hours of receipt. There are currently 127 pieces of unactioned and unlinked post in the Agency's six CSACs.
Parliamentary correspondence is passed to the Customer Service Section for action; tight controls are in place to monitor progress.
All CSACs have Client Helplines (previously known as Call Handling Teams) who record details of all case specific calls on CSCS. A telephone enquiry which requires action by another section is passed on with a written referral. During February 1996, the total number of calls made to the six CSAC Client Helplines was over 411,000; in addition, over 43,000 were made to the National Enquiry Line during this period.
The procedures that are currently in place for dealing with telephone calls and incoming mail have been developed since the launch of the agency in 1993. During their development, organisational changes have been made to deal with incoming mail more efficiently and staff have been made aware of the need to reply to all communications properly.
Finally, I turn to your point regarding the excessive reliance by the agency on the word processor and the standard letter. The agency does indeed use a number of standard letters. This ensures a consistent standard of correspondence in terms of both content and presentation when the agency is replying to the same standard questions. The debt management side of the agency's business is computerised and letters are, therefore, generated by the computer system.
We are currently reviewing our standard letters to see if there is scope for further improvements. There are circumstances, however, where the use of a standard letter would not be appropriate, and in such situations a more personal and individual letter is issued. All such letters are signed by the sending officer, and a telephone number is given for help and information.
I hope this is helpful.