| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Child Support Agency
7. Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the review procedure of the Child Support Agency. [8795]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): A child maintenance assessment may be reviewed on various grounds. A variety of changes have been made over the past year to streamline and improve the procedures.
Ms Squire: Does the Minister share my concern that one of my constituents asked for a review of the basis on which his assessment had been made on 1 August 1995, is still waiting for the review to be completed and is in severe financial difficulties as a result? Will the Minister undertake an investigation of my constituent's case and ensure that appropriate action is taken to prevent any similar delay for my constituents or those of other hon. Members?
Mr. Mitchell: I am aware of that case, as the hon. Lady has raised it with me. I have looked at it personally and found that problems have arisen, some of which are certainly the Child Support Agency's fault. Her constituent's case is now undergoing simultaneously a change of circumstance review and an appeal, and I have given instructions that it should be taken forward as a priority.
Sir David Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Child Support Agency still has some way to go before it reaches a reasonable level of accuracy of assessments? Does he further agree that staff in certain offices must show more patience and understanding when talking to our constituents about the complicated, detailed matters which our constituents are obliged to pass on to them?
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of civil, courteous and effective treatment by agency staff at all times. Staff training has been increased significantly over the past year. It is important to recognise that, following last year's significant changes, the policy is now fair. The CSA will never be loved, as it enters people's lives at a difficult time. Its key challenge, however, is to continue to improve over the coming months, as it has over the past year.
Ms Lynne: Is it not disgraceful that the Child Support Agency takes on average 211 days to process a claim and,
of those, only 29 per cent. are right? Is it not also disgraceful that the Child Support Act 1991 is emotionally damaging children brought up in lone-parent families? Is it not time that the Government scrapped the Act and brought in a unified family court system?
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady's contribution is typical of the unconstructive suggestions that we hear from the Liberal Democrats. A Liberal Democrat policy document says:
- "Some Liberal Democrat ideas are difficult to understand and over complicated."
Nothing could be more true of what they say about the Child Support Agency. The hon. Lady should pay tribute to the fact that accuracy in the CSA is increasing and has increased significantly since last year. It has been set a target of 75 per cent. accuracy and is running at just over 70 per cent. I am advised that, in the past month, the CSA's accuracy has approached 80 per cent. of all the cases that have come before it.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes:
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Child Support Agency has some way to go before it is as good as we all want it to be, hon. Members should congratulate its chief executive on the great improvement that she has made during her time in that job? Will he keep in sight the minority of fathers who can but will not pay, and who do not want to know what it costs to bring up their children, and let them know that the taxpayer will bail them out no longer?
Mr. Mitchell:
My hon. Friend is right. I shall pass on his generous and accurate remarks to the chief executive of the CSA. Over the past year, Parliament has made significant changes to the agency's operation. We have introduced the 30 per cent. rule, which means that no absent parent will pay more than 30 per cent. of his or her net income for current maintenance. In addition, we shall shortly pilot the departures process, which will add to the system an important degree of fairness that may have been missing in the agency's early days.
Miss Hoey:
Will the Minister consider a simple move that would change attitudes? Will he change the terminology that we use and get rid of the term "absent parent", which no other country with a child support agency uses, and use instead titles such as the "payee", or "non-custodial parent"? The fact that a parent is "absent" does not mean that he or she does not care about the child. Why cannot that change be made immediately?
Mr. Mitchell:
The hon. Lady has raised that point before, most recently in the Select Committee, so I am aware of her concern. I agree that the terminology is not entirely satisfactory, but it is not easy to find an alternative form of words to meet our requirements.
8. Mr. Anthony Coombs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to introduce a
Mr. Heald:
We have no plans to introduce a guaranteed minimum pension. It is estimated that a scheme of this type, based on £80 a week, would currently cost up to £5 billion.
Mr. Coombs:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to deal with the challenges of an increasingly aging society is not through a guaranteed minimum pension, which may not be sustainable, but by better targeting of benefits towards those who most need them, and the provision of private pensions? Is it not interesting that it has been announced today that £600 billion is invested in investment funds and pension schemes in this country, which is a far greater sum than is invested in all the other European countries put together?
Mr. Heald:
A guaranteed minimum pension would force every pensioner to submit to a means test. It would amount to a tax on thrift. Many people who had a private pension would receive nothing--there could be no greater disincentive to save. As my hon. Friend said, £600 billion is invested in private pension schemes in the UK. That money is invested efficiently, unlike money invested in the stakeholder scheme, in which the trade unions would be involved and which might produce poor returns such as they have in Singapore.
Mr. Denham:
Is not the truth that, under the Tories, more than 3 million pensioners are today forced to depend on means-tested benefits, and perhaps 750,000 do not apply for their entitlement? Is it not also true that more than 1 million pensioners receive less than 20 per cent. of average male earnings--the amount provided by the basic state pension alone in 1979? Is not the truth behind the Minister's words that the Government have betrayed today's generation of pensioners and are in the process of betraying tomorrow's?
Mr. Heald:
The hon. Gentleman is right: take-up is important. That is why the Government have set up about 80,000 information points to which we send information about pensions so that pensioners are aware of their rights. The hon. Gentleman got carried away with his rhetoric. The rise in pensioners' incomes since 1979 has been 51 per cent. in real terms. Some £1.2 billion of extra help has been given to those on income support. When the hon. Gentleman considers the proposals that he suggests for stakeholding or stateholding, does he think that a return rate of 2 per cent. is anywhere near equivalent to the performance of our private sector pensions, which currently give a return of 10 per cent?
9. Mr. John Marshall:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about the payment of social security benefits to asylum seekers. [8797]
Mr. Lilley:
I have received a number of items of correspondence about asylum seekers from a variety of sources.
Mr. Marshall:
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 70 per cent. of asylum seekers who are on benefit misrepresented their assets and means when they came to this country, and that 90 per cent. of claims for asylum are shown to be bogus? Do not those facts and the rapid increase in the number of asylum seekers underline the need for action and the sheer irresponsibility of those who oppose any action?
Mr. Lilley:
My hon. Friend is right: 70 per cent. of those who claim to be asylum seekers did not, originally, when they entered the country and were asked by immigration officials their reasons for doing so, say that they were seeking asylum--they said that they were visitors, tourists or business men. They had to demonstrate and convince the immigration officers that what they said was true. They had to demonstrate that they had the means to support themselves when here and the means to return home subsequently. They usually showed that they had someone to stay with here. In those circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable that they should not receive benefit if they subsequently change their story and declare themselves to be asylum seekers. That is the rule that we are introducing under the new regulations.
Mr. Chris Smith:
Is the Secretary of State aware that both the Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Hume have recently written jointly to the Prime Minister to express their concern about the Government's proposals? What has his response been--simply to plough ahead? Will he now answer the question that he has consistently refused to answer: when all benefit is withdrawn, how are people to live? How are they to feed their children? Will they starve? Has humanity completely disappeared?
Mr. Lilley:
The hon. Gentleman was not here when the statement was made--he was seeking asylum in Singapore, I believe--and consequently he perhaps did not hear the reasons for what we have done and the justification for the changes. As I have just explained, I believe that justification to be sound. The only people who will be required to live on their own resources after making a claim for asylum will be those who have demonstrated to the immigration authorities that they have the resources on which to live. My response, on receiving the letters from the noble prelates to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, was to offer to see them before I made my statement.
Mr. Churchill:
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread resentment about the fact that foreign nationals from outside the European economic area can qualify for British social security almost as soon as they arrive in this country? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Canada has a five-year residence requirement before any foreigner can qualify for Canadian social security? Is it not time that we introduced similar rules in this country?
Mr. Lilley:
My hon. Friend is right. Until recently, our rules were considerably laxer than those of most other countries, both as regards people from within the European economic area and those outside it. We have tightened up--rightly--in both cases. We have introduced an habitual residence test, which will, I hope, stop--and has largely stopped--benefit tourism in Europe, and we are tightening up on claims by asylum seekers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |