HC Deb 16 January 1996 vol 269 cc565-8W
Ms Lynne

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the benefit savings resulting from activities in respect of liable relatives in each year since 1989; and how much of this was attributable to maintenance paid. [8142]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell

The information is in the list:

  • 1989–90: £207 million
  • 1990–91: £232 million
  • 1991–92: £283.9 million
  • 1992–93: £313 million.

In 1992–93 liable relative action fell under the umbrella of the child support unit.

These figures include savings made where the level of maintenance reduced the amount of income support in payment; where maintenance removed the need for income support; and those cases where the claim for income support was withdrawn following liable relative action. It is not possible to break the figures down into these different categories.

Ms Lynne

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent the benefit savings claimed by the Child Support Agency are calculated in a manner which gives a like-for-like comparison with(a) the liable relatives unit and (b) the court system which preceded it. [8120]

Mr. Mitchell

Because of the differing nature of the work, there is no direct like-for-like comparison.

Ms Lynne

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to audit the benefit savings figures produced by the Child Support Agency; [8126]

(2) what assessment he has made of accounting methods used by the Child Support Agency to calculate benefit savings. [8122]

Mr. Mitchell

Audits were carried out by Price Waterhouse in 1993–94 and 1994–95. The auditors found that the procedure for reporting and measuring benefit savings was more likely to understate than overstate benefit savings.

Ms Lynne

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the benefit savings claimed by the Child Support Agency are calculated on the same basis as the benefit savings estimates in the financial memorandum of the Child Support Act 1991. [8127]

Mr. Mitchell

No. While the Child Support Agency's benefit savings figures include the effect on benefit expenditure of maintenance paid calculated on the same basis as the estimates for the financial memorandum, the latter figure also included an estimate of the longer-term effect on expenditure of a reduction in the number of lone parents on benefit resulting from enhanced work incentives and other factors. The benefit savings figures, on the other hand, include estimates of the effect on expenditure of claims to benefit ceasing as a result of agency action but take no account of the longer-term incentive effect of the work of the Child Support Agency.

Ms Lynne

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his estimate of expenditure savings following the Child Support Act 1991 included a calculation of the effects of the withdrawal of benefit claims by recipients of income support. [8141]

Mr. Mitchell

Yes.

Mr. Thurnham

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures are followed by the Child Support Agency when contacting absent parents in cases where paternity has not yet been established; and in how many cases Child Support Agency procedures have been breached in this matter. [5767]

Mr. Mitchell

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

Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Peter Thurnham, dated 11 January 1996: I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the procedures followed by the Child Support Agency when tracing and identifying absent parents in cases where paternity has not been established. Information about absent parents is provided to the Agency in the first instance by the parent with care (PWC). Where paternity is not yet established the Agency follows set procedures in contacting the alleged absent parent (AAP), and these vary depending on whether the AAP knows that the PWC considers him to be the parent of the child or children in question. Where the PWC has provided a current and confident address for the AAP, and the AAP knows that the PWC considers him to be the parent, the Agency issues a maintenance enquiry form by post to the AAP. Where the PWC has provided a current and confident address for the AAP, but the AAP does not know that he is considered to be the parent, the Agency writes to him inviting him to call at the office to discuss "a social security matter". The letter does not give any indication of the Agency's interest. If the information provided by the PWC on the identity or address of the AAP is not complete or confident, the Agency takes action to trace the right person. Child support legislation provides that this may include an approach being made to an employer to enable an AAP to be traced. The objective is to arrange for a private interview in the same way as described above, to resolve the paternity issue. Sometimes several men have to be interviewed to eliminate those whose personal details indicate they may be the AAP, before the correct man is identified. The method of contacting an employer may be by telephone or letter. When correspondence is sent to an employer it is marked "Private and Confidential—The Personnel Manager". It gives no details for the reason for our request, but quotes the legislation which is being invoked—in this case Child Support legislation—because the employer will have already refused to give the information over the phone in response to a generalised "DSS" request. There are a number of reasons why we could be approaching an employer in this way, including the need to contact a parent who is due money as well as a parent who may be liable to pay it. We never divulge the precise reason to the employer either in our phone contacts or in our letters. No correspondence should be issued to an AAP until the Agency is sure that the person traced could very well be the AAP described by the PWC. As explained above, the type of correspondence then issued depends upon whether or not the AAP knows that the PWC regards him as the parent. This is not a new way of working, the Benefits Agency and the DSS before it took similar action when it had responsibility for liable relative work. The Agency does not collate information on the number of cases where procedures have been breached. The Agency will, of course, investigate fully any complaint that the correct procedures have not been followed, but such instances are very unusual. For example, available data shows that out of 852, 763 maintenance enquiry forms issued from April 1993 (the inception of the Agency), to October 1995, 222 of them (0.026 per cent) were issued to someone who in fact had no child maintenance liability in the case concerned. Of this relatively small number, by no means all were because the CSA acted incorrectly (PWCs sometimes give wrong information), but wherever our strict procedures are breached, disciplinary action is taken against the member(s) of staff who are culpable. You may wish to note that the Agency has traced and/or identified the whereabouts of over 100,000 absent parents since it was created in April 1993. I hope this is helpful.