| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Child Support Agency
7. Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): What plans he has to reform the administration of the CSA. [73044]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The Green Paper published last year stated our proposals for radical reform of the discredited child support system. We also made it clear that we would be expecting the Child Support Agency to make substantial improvements before the reforms took effect. Considerable progress has already been made. Planned changes for the coming year include a much improved face-to-face service; simplification of the decision-making and appeals process; introduction of improved arrangements for dealing with the self-employed; and clearer and simpler communication.
Mr. MacShane: I welcome the Minister's reply. Does she agree with two main points on the CSA? First, since the agency was established six years ago, it has done nothing to slow the break-up of families, or the relentless rise in lone parenthood and school-age pregnancies--the three major by-products of the Conservative era. Secondly, perhaps the agency's greatest failure is the fact that the proportion of lone parents on benefit who receive maintenance from absent fathers is now no higher than it was in 1993.
I welcome the report in today's newspapers about lone parents on low incomes and in work keeping more of their child maintenance. Will the Government consider extending those arrangement to unemployed single mothers--they should be able to keep as much of their child maintenance as is equivalent to child benefit--and ring-fencing that maintenance in detachment of earnings orders, so that fathers understand that some of their money is going directly to their children and not to the Treasury?
Angela Eagle:
Although my hon. Friend is right about the proportion of parents with care who are currently receiving maintenance, he must also understand that there has been a 60 per cent. increase in case load. We are expecting the case load for the CSA to pass the 1 million mark before the end of the year. Although it is much more effective than it was, it is saddled with a very difficult system of child maintenance assessment, which we are in the middle--via our Green Paper--of attempting to simplify. We shall, in due course, be introducing those changes.
I also thank my hon. Friend for noticing the announcements on a 100 per cent disregard for women lone parents who are receiving working families tax credit. The disregard should provide them with a huge incentive to go into work. I hope that my hon. Friend will also recognise that there is a £10 disregard for parents with care who are on benefit. Therefore, absent fathers can see that some of their maintenance money is going for the upkeep of their children.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex):
Will the hon. Lady accept from me that improvements in how the CSA works are greatly to be welcomed? However, will she also agree that part of the problem for all our constituents is the inconsistency in the service that they receive from the CSA? Although the training programmes that have been established are undoubtedly yielding great benefits, will
Angela Eagle:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that child maintenance is a very delicate, difficult and complex issue, and welcome his acknowledgement that the CSA is making strides in how it deals with the issue, particularly through greater telephone contact. We are just completing assessments of pilots on joint Benefits Agency-CSA work, which relies on tele-claiming. We have also allocated £12 million extra to improve the direct client service this year. Those improvements are now showing results.
As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), however, the CSA has a very difficult task in attempting to assess child maintenance using the very complex formula established in primary legislation. I do not believe that we shall make any real breakthrough until we have managed to change the formula, for which we shall require primary legislation.
Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North):
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the proposals in the Green Paper will cut off the dozens of escape routes in information flow that are exercised by absent parents and that proposals will also be made to alter dramatically the ratio of staff time spent on chasing that information to time spent on collection?
Angela Eagle:
Yes. I believe that with a simpler assessment process the CSA will be able to change the current situation--90 per cent. of time spent on assessing maintenance and only 10 per cent. of time spent collecting it--to a more healthy state of affairs.
8. Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
What plans he has for increasing assistance to older pensioners. [73045]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms):
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The minimum income guarantee is being set at a higher level for older pensioners. It will be £75 a week for a single pensioner just above retirement age, but £77.30 a week for a single pensioner aged 75 to 79 and £82.25 a week for a pensioner aged 80 or over.
Mr. Hughes:
That is welcome. However, what would the Minister say to pensioners over 75 throughout the country who do not want to go through the means-testing process, those who cannot do so and those who discover that their small life savings or a small occupational pension would result in them getting no minimum income guarantee top-up, leaving them with no additional basic state pension? There is not a single paragraph in the Green Paper on older pensioners' entitlements. Does that mean that the Government have excluded once and for all increasing the basic state pension for older pensioners and are going to leave them with the 25p for the over 80s, which they regard as a simple insult?
Mr. Timms:
I am aware of the proposals in the document produced this morning by the Liberal
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok):
Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents die sooner than those who live in the more salubrious suburbs of Glasgow? Does he accept that there is a strong connection between prosperity and longevity? It would be unfair for money to be targeted on those who happen to live longer. Does he accept that it is essential that those who are in need receive money and that the Government's targeting process of giving more money to those in need is a far fairer way of distributing the money available?
Mr. Timms:
I agree with my hon. Friend. Even the least well-off pensioners should share in rising national prosperity. That is why it is right to aim to link the level of the minimum income guarantee with average earnings. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats have endorsed that policy today.
9. Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
What representations he has received about the minimum guaranteed pension. [73046]
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling):
We have received a number of items of correspondence about the minimum income guarantee, including some responses to our proposals for pension reform, which I published last December.
Mr. Waterson:
Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that his minimum pension guarantee is nothing of the sort? Some 600,000 pensioners in this country with a weekly income of less than £75 will not receive a top-up because they have been prudent enough to save during their working life.
Mr. Darling:
Listening to the Conservatives this afternoon, I assume that they would get rid of the minimum income guarantee, which would be a great pity. We are ensuring that a single pensioner will get £75 a week and a married couple will get £116.60. That is far more than they would ever have received relying on earnings-related benefits. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that in his constituency and throughout the country, one of the problems that we, as a civilised society, have to face is that far too many pensioners have nothing. We were determined to end that scandal.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the 18 years that I sat on the Opposition Benches, I never heard a single complaint from Conservative Members about means-testing? What we are hearing today is unique for Labour Members who have served in Parliament for quite a time.
Having said that, does my right hon. Friend accept that much needs to be done for pensioners who, in some cases, are just above the income support level? They are having tremendous difficulties and I believe that their complaints have much justification. I hope that the Budget will offer help to those people, who are being punished--as they were under the Conservatives--for being poor, but who are just above the level described by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Darling:
As I have made clear, I am aware of the problems of people with modest incomes and capital, to which my hon. Friend has referred. He is also right on another point: the Conservatives were quiet about means-testing for the 18 years before 1997 because they doubled the incidence of it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |