---

Child Support

4. Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): If he will make a statement on the operation and performance of the new scheme of child support arrangements since March 2003. [218085]

10. Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): What his latest estimate is of when he will approve the transfer of all old cases to the new system at the Child Support Agency. [218091]

13. Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): If he will make a statement on progress in the transition to the new Child Support Agency system. [218094]

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Alan Johnson): Under the new scheme, just under a quarter of a million applications had been cleared by September 2004 and over 33,000 first child maintenance premium payments had been made.

As I said to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, this area is at the top of my agenda. We have been working hard with Electronic Data Systems to overcome the computer difficulties. I intend to report back to Parliament following the next software release. We know that much more work still needs to be done and I am keen that we should explore a variety of improvement solutions.

Mr. Hendrick: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the arrangements for child maintenance payments from March 2003 were meant to get payments flowing quickly and regularly. Two years on, like many of my colleagues, no doubt, I still regularly find cases of incorrect levels of assessment, delays in adjusting assessments and payments, and a system that seems to
 
28 Feb 2005 : Column 633
 
penalise those willing to pay, rather than those unwilling to pay, causing much distress to many. How quickly will that situation change?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend can ask me how quickly the situation will change. I am afraid that I cannot give—

Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne) (Con): He does not have a clue.

Alan Johnson: I think that that is a better description of the Conservative party when it was in power. When it comes to failures in the Child Support Agency and to computer failures, it built up a certain amount of expertise in its 18 years in power.

As I said in my initial answer, the first stage is to get the computer system right. I will report to Parliament. Indeed, the Work and Pensions Committee, whose Chairman, the hon. the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), is present, has asked for a report to Parliament in the spring. It is right that I report to Parliament when the final software upgrade has taken place, because we will then know whether we have got the computer system right. If it is right and up and running properly, we can plan accordingly and transfer the old cases across to it. I hope to be in a better position to provide a precise time scale when I report to Parliament in the spring.

Angela Watkinson: The Secretary of State will know that many absent fathers trapped on the old system are paying so much of their income in CSA payments that they barely have enough left to live on, and certainly not enough to take advantage of their access rights. The best advice that the CSA can offer them is that they give up their jobs and go on to benefits. Clearly, that is to nobody's advantage—not the men themselves, nor the children nor the community at large. This situation cannot go on. Something has to be done about it urgently.

Alan Johnson: I would be surprised if anyone from the CSA advised such a person to go on to benefits. I know that the hon. Lady recently wrote to me about a case involving the CSA, too, and I should point out that if any such advice has been given, it is wrong and should be countered. In terms of the difficulties experienced with the CSA, no one should be exempt from criticism—neither me nor anyone in this House—except the CSA staff, who have tried hard to cope in very difficult circumstances. They should be applauded, but if there are occasions when the wrong advice has been given, I want to know about them so that we can deal with the situation immediately.

Dr. Palmer: Does the Secretary of State not agree that even if the new software works as we hope it will and the transfer of old cases begins, the process has taken substantially longer than we hoped? Moreover, does he also agree that the transition disregard of only £10 a week each year—the intention behind it was to allow recipients more time to anticipate the change—is perhaps no longer appropriate? We have been anticipating such a change for year after year, so it will
 
28 Feb 2005 : Column 634
 
come as no surprise to anyone. Once we get the new system up and running, should we not implement the changes a little faster?

Alan Johnson: We should implement the changes as fast as possible. The £10 disregard is an important part of the new system—it is not intended as some form of compensation and nor is it dependent on the new system's being introduced more quickly. In fact, it is a very important component and it was agreed to in all parts of the House when the relevant legislation was passed. We are very keen to ensure that as many people as possible can take advantage of the £10 disregard, and to remind people that under the old system a £1,000 payment is available for single parents who take up work. That is an important element of the original CSA scheme.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): Where the CSA has agreed that substantial arrears are payable to the parent with care, why cannot a manual payment be made, rather than waiting for the computer programme to be fixed?

Alan Johnson: Provision is made for manual payments. Indeed, our staff are working on four different systems: the old scheme on the old IT, the new scheme on the old IT, the new scheme on the new IT, and clerical cases. The purpose of that last approach is to deal with such problems where there is no alternative to a manual method. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about the particular case he has in mind, I will look into it.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Given EDS's track record of failing to deliver on its promises, what fall-back position do the Government have if EDS fails yet again?

Alan Johnson: As my right hon. Friend knows, we have withheld payments in respect of EDS until the system is right. In fact, to be fair to EDS, our Pension Service system, which it also runs, has been working very well. However, we want to ensure that the scheme is operating properly for the people whom we care about most—the children involved—and we will ensure that until that is so, the money will not be released to EDS. Indeed, we will withhold a substantial amount.

Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): As the Secretary of State has already made it clear that he has been working closely with EDS, he will recall that it said last October that by the end of the year it would have given the agency the tools to do the job. Is it not now increasingly clear that the main problem is not just computers that do not work, but a management culture that is dysfunctional and an outcome that is based on discrimination between old cases and new cases, which is increasingly unacceptable? The chief executive has been given his cards, but he is apparently still working, so would it not be appropriate if Ministers, who appear to lack any political will or sense of urgency about this matter, were given their cards promptly, too?
 
28 Feb 2005 : Column 635
 

Alan Johnson: I shall respond to a little of that. The hon. Gentleman knows that Her Majesty's official Opposition take the rather pathetic course of packing a Back-Bench Select Committee with their own Front Benchers—something that I always find rather distasteful and unnecessary—so Conservative Members know that we have been round the track on all of this. The hon. Gentleman is right about EDS having said last year that the computer software would be installed by the end of the year. It will not, but we hope that it will be in place by the next phase in the spring.

The system is working sufficiently well to make a decision on termination difficult, but not well enough to deliver the standards that our customers expect—that is the problem. It does not mean that we have removed the so-called nuclear option of changing the provider. That will be kept in play until we are absolutely sure that the new system will work. Changing providers can cause problems; it could mean making children who need the money wait even longer, so we must take that into account as well.

Incapacity Benefit

5. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): If he will make a statement on his policy on the number of new claimants who will be entitled to receive the new higher rate of benefit following incapacity benefit reform. [218086]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We expect the clear majority of new claimants to be on the rehabilitation and support allowance, as most people come on to an incapacity benefit with potentially manageable conditions. Disability and sickness allowance will focus on those with the most severe impairments where the health problem or disability will form a very significant obstacle to getting back to work.

Andrew Selous: What proportion of the current 2.7 million incapacity benefit recipients would be entitled to the new higher-rate disability and sickness allowance if the new rules were applied to them, as they will be in 2008? Does the Minister expect the proportion of new claimants eligible for disability and sickness allowance to be significantly different?

Maria Eagle: The distinction will be made using a functional assessment, and the current percentages, if we use the current personal capability assessment as a guide, are about 80 and 20. I do not expect them to be significantly different in future, but the point of the new programme is that it will provide significant extra help for those on rehabilitation and support allowance and for those on disability and sickness allowance, should they wish to take advantage of it. The much more supportive environment and additional help provided by pathways will provide an extra financial incentive so that many of the 1 million people currently on sickness and incapacity benefit who tell us that they want to work will have the chance to do so, and it is about time that they did.
 
28 Feb 2005 : Column 636
 

Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, Cathcart) (Lab): Representing a constituency in a city where one in five of the working-age population claim incapacity benefit, I welcomed the Secretary of State's statement to the House last month in which he outlined the changes. However, I have to say that I am not optimistic that these new incentives alone will encourage enough claimants back into work. We have heard about the carrots, but can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell the House which sticks the Government considered using and why they have not been used?

Maria Eagle: I do not think that it is appropriate to talk about using sticks when we are dealing with disabled people. Many such people have been written off largely because the previous Government threw them on to invalidity benefit and abandoned them for years. What they need is help and assistance, not sticks. Through pathways, 90,000 people have so far been helped and 9,000 people have moved into work; and it is easy to forget that 200,000 people have been helped into work by the mainstream new deals. We are learning how to help these people and it is about time that we extended those lessons across the country. That is what Labour intends to do, unlike the Conservative party, which wants simply to privatise—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab): May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions on the great help that has been afforded to many of my constituents to get them back into work? In an earlier answer, my hon. Friend referred to additional help. Can she say something this afternoon about those rural constituents of mine who have not only mobility problems, but transport problems in getting to work, and therefore need extra help? What assurance can she give them that she will ensure that they have the opportunity to play a full and active part in working life?

Maria Eagle: We want the changes to build on the experience and support that our personal advisers can give to individuals. The importance of various interventions will, as my hon. Friend suggested, vary from place to place. The advisers' discretionary fund enables our staff to make the best use of the money available to provide that assistance according to local conditions. In a rural area, some of the money might be used to ensure that transport is available. Ensuring that our front-line staff have discretion means that the system will be sufficiently flexible to enable people to be helped, whatever part of the country they live in.

---