HL Deb 01 February 1996 vol 568 cc166-17WA
Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to Sir Michael Partridge's evidence to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (First Report, Session 1995–96, (HC Paper 31) (Q43) on the Child Support Agency, when Sir Michael referred to "money that passes between two parents without the Agency getting involved at all but due to the Agency's activities", if the agency had not got involved at all, how he knew that the passing of money was due to its activities;

Further to Sir Michael Partridge's evidence to the Public Accounts Committee (Q51) when he said that "when they find that we are investigating their circumstances, quite a few absent parents and quite a few parents with care promptly disappear off Income Support", whether they possess any evidence to show whether it is a casual connection or a coincidence, and if it is a casual connection, any evidence to suggest what its nature might be; and

Further to Sir Michael Partridge's evidence to the Public Accounts Committee (Q108) that 60,000 people had withdrawn their Income Support claims as a "direct" result of the activities of the Child Support Agency, whether he had any evidence to support his use of the word "direct", or whether his answer should have read: "following the activities of the Child Support Agency".

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 the Earl Russell from Miss Ann Chant, Chief Executive, Child Support Agency, dated 1 February 1996.

I am replying to your recent parliamentary Questions to Her Majesty's Government concerning the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee by Sir Michael Partridge.

In his evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on 19th June 1995, Sir Michael Partridge referred to the fact that in addition to collecting £87 million through the agency collection service since April 1993, the Child Support Agency has also assessed and arranged maintenance for clients who have chosen to pay the maintenance direct from absent parent to parent with care. The agency is not involved at all in collecting this maintenance, but its payment is due to the agency's activities.

I will now turn to the matter of people who cease to claim income support following the activities of the agency. The agency only claims a benefit saving in cases where the parent with care or absent parent withdraws their claim to Income Support within no more than four weeks of direct contact between themselves (or their representatives) and the Agency, or within no more than eight weeks if the contact relates to an investigation into the requirement to cooperate. This recent and direct contact is deemed to be the casual connection.

The agency does not state categorically that the withdrawal of all these claims to income support is solely as a direct result of CSA action. No reason is volunteered for the majority of such withdrawals of claims. It would therefore be more accurate to say that these claims are withdrawn directly following the activities of the Child Support Agency.

In claiming these savings in prescribed time restrictions, the agency applies an established departmental principle that a saving be claimed in all appropriate cases. Some might not be attributable to the involvement or action of the agency; but other savings which are attributable to the agency's actions but occurred outside of the four/eight week limit will not be claimed.