| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
Child Support Agency
Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth): I am pleased to introduce this short but important debate about the Child Support Agency. I am sorry that the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is not in his place, but I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is present and I am sure that he will be a more than adequate deputy. We look forward to hearing his comments in due course.
In 1991 I, like the overwhelming majority of hon. Members, supported the establishment of the Child Support Agency. We did so in the belief that it is wrong for men and women to walk away from their parental responsibilities. I remind the House that, somewhat unusually, there was no Division on Third Reading--a fact which underlined the perceived need for the legislation.
The Child Support Agency has had a difficult birth--indeed, it has been somewhat star-crossed. I acknowledge the great efforts made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who will respond to the debate, and by the agency's chief executive to improve matters. My hon. Friend has introduced no fewer than 112 changes in the past 10 months that are designed to improve the work of the agency. He and the chief executive have grabbed the CSA by the scruff of its neck, and I have no doubt that, as the changes filter through, the instances of maladministration will decrease.
The ombudsman has identified certain serious failures in administration. He referred to
The work of the Child Support Agency touches upon some of the most difficult and sensitive aspects of people's lives. I suspect that an overwhelming majority of hon. Members have been alerted by their constituents to instances of maladministration within the Child Support Agency. This morning I shall concentrate on three specific
areas: first, the current performance of the agency; secondly, the way in which complaints are handled; and, thirdly, the granting of redress.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recently answered questions at the Dispatch Box about the performance of the Child Support Agency. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, he said:
However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on Wednesday 27 March. On that occasion, the ombudsman said:
The ombudsman continued:
In fairness to the House, I concede that 195 investigations are not many when viewed in the context of 1.25 million cases. It might, however, assist hon. Members if I were to adopt a more global perspective. In 1994, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration received 30 complaints about the Inland Revenue, which handles between 30 million and 35 million cases each year.
Miss Chant, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, recently gave evidence to the Select Committee. She contended that, as a result of the nature of the ombudsman's work, the cases in his report were not of recent origin. She gave examples of the way in which the agency's performance had improved. She pointed out that 18 months ago the agency received 370 complaints each week from Members of Parliament and that that rate had now steadied at just under 200. I think that that is an interesting measurement of success and improvement. I appreciate that any reduction in the number of complaints is laudable, but 200 complaints from hon. Members is still a substantial number.
Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton)
rose--
Mr. Pawsey:
I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who is an indefatigable member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
Mr. Nicholson:
My hon. Friend is right to point out the large number of complaints that Members of Parliament continue to make to the Child Support Agency. Does he agree that the parliamentary ombudsman does not investigate every complaint that Members of Parliament make about the agency, because many of them fall into the category of generic orders which he is already investigating? My hon. Friend mentioned a figure of 195 investigations, and I must have referred a dozen complaints to the ombudsman. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the importance that the House attaches to some of the agency's successes--for example, in chasing 120,000 absent parents--it is regrettable, and damages the legislation and the persons who promoted it, that such maladministration should be continuing?
Mr. Pawsey:
My hon. Friend makes a genuinely important point, and as it may be of interest to other hon. Members, I shall refer to it later.
When I spoke to the ombudsman this morning, he told me that, since 1 January this year, he has received 205 complaints from Members of Parliament, and that 1,500 telephone inquiries have been received by his office--50 per cent. of which referred specifically to the Child Support Agency.
Having said that, let me stress the other side of the equation. There have been a substantial number of genuine improvements to the agency's performance over the past 12 months. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and the CSA's chief executive on their work. Their task is clearly herculean. The agency's staff have to cope with couples who have broken up, often in the most acrimonious circumstances, and with a campaign of deliberate obstruction. Piled on top of all those difficulties have been the changes to the law designed to improve the agency's operations. Such changes are necessary and beneficial but in the short term, they place an added burden on CSA staff.
I make it clear that the problems highlighted by the ombudsman are not historical. In the interests of objectivity, I must inform the House that the ombudsman advised me today that there have been
I am sure that the ombudsman would want me to put that comment firmly on the record.
I will refer next to maladministration and the way in which complaints about the agency are dominating the ombudsman's case load.
Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire):
I am glad to interrupt my hon. Friend at the moment when he is saying that the ombudsman is pleased, as we all are, with the agency's improvements. I ask my hon. Friend to address the fundamental reason that the parliamentary ombudsman was established--to serve as a backstop for the individual citizen who feels that any area of the Administration has let him down. My understanding is that, as a result of the case load, the individual citizen is
"confusion over jurisdiction; breaching of confidentiality of information; delays in dealing with applications for maintenance; problems with intra-maintenance assessments; delays in enforcement action leading to loss of maintenance; and delays in passing on maintenance collected from the absent parent to the parent with care of children."
"I noted that of the 20 cases the ombudsman looked at, some 14 involved problems which began in 1993. In that sense, his report is historic".--[Official Report, 19 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 165.]
"Miss Chant kindly admitted that old mistakes were still being made and she did not refute the fact that I included in my report cases which arose in 1995".
"I did not want to give the impression that I was only looking at old matters. I included reference to types of case where I am investigating, but of which I had not concluded my investigation by the time I published my second special report. You will see on pages 11 and 12 of my report examples of that; you will see examples on pages 13 and 14; you will see examples on pages 15 and 16, on page 18, page 19 and page 20. These are all examples of complaints put to me about mistakes that were certainly not 1993 or 1994; these are all 1995 examples of maladministration".
My hon. Friend referred also to the ombudsman's criticisms regarding delay in transferring money from the agency to the parent with care. He pointed out, quite properly, that 97 per cent. of payments--an extraordinary figure--are now sent out within 10 days. My hon. Friend also emphasised the fact that, while the ombudsman looked at just under 200 CSA cases, the agency deals with 1.25 million cases. Therefore, two lines of defence are being advanced in response to the ombudsman's report: first, the ombudsman's investigations deal with historic difficulties; and, secondly, the Child Support Agency handles a large number of cases.
"a lot of improvements made to the work of the Child Support Agency."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |