Letter from the Secretary of State to
the Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for your letter in which you stated a number
of additional questions following my appearance before the committee.
The information you requested follows this letter.
In addition I would just like to alert you to the
fact that since my last report on performance the Agency is revisiting
its statistical data. As you are aware the IT difficulties have
impacted on the quality of management information. As more information
has become available we have begun to develop a more detailed
understanding of our caseload. As a result we will shortly be
updating our performance information with more robust figures
than hitherto.
CHILD SUPPORT
AGENCY INQUIRY—ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS
Question 1
Evidence to the Committee suggests that parents with
care (PWCs) are very unhappy that the onus appears to be upon
them to inform the Agency if they think the Non-resident Parent
(NRP) has had an increase in income. Can you clarify what the
procedures are for reassessing the maintenance calculation?
Do the procedures need to be changed to allow for
regular reviews or a reassessment to be requested by either party?
Existing legislation already allows cases to be reviewed
at the request of either party. If the parent with care asks for
a review because they believe that the non resident parent has
had an increase in income the Agency will contact the non resident
parent.
They will request details of current income and also
seek to verify this by reference to available evidence. For example
evidence is usually in the form of payslips. If these are not
available the Agency will contact the employer and if necessary
contact Inland Revenue.
Where the non-resident parent is self-employed evidence
will be sought in the form of the last self-assessment tax return
or possibly more recent trading accounts. The Agency will obtain
details of the income of self-employed persons direct from the
Inland Revenue if the non-resident parent fails to provide this
information themselves.
Question 2
The recent CSA Standards Committee report gave an
astonishing review of the failure of most staff to follow agreed
guidelines, advising that 5% of the NRP's net income should be
collected to repay outstanding arrears. In fact, where staff did
arrange collection of arrears, the average schedule length was
11.8 years. Why are staff failing to follow the national standards?
What measures are being taken to tackle this situation
and to recover the arrears?
We have had some difficulty in embedding national
standards because of high staff turnover in these areas and because
the Agency's main training and education focus in this period
has been on the implementation of (and difficulties associated
with) Child Support Reform.
We have responded to the Standards Committee report
by reminding all staff of the requirements of the guidance and
providing additional management support to them. In addition we
have now announced the appointment of an Enforcement Director
whose team will work with the local managers to monitor compliance
with agreed standards and intervene where necessary.
Question 3
The organisation One Parent Families argues that,
due to the poor performance of the CSA, consideration should be
given to the introduction of an "advance maintenance"
scheme, whereby PWCs are guaranteed by the State at least a proportion
of the maintenance they are due. In light of the child poverty
target, is this something the Department is prepared to consider?
Do you think it would improve the CSA's incentive to enforce maintenance
payments?
The new scheme allows every parent with care
to keep at least part of any maintenance paid for their children.
There is also evidence that when maintenance is flowing parents
with care are more likely to go into work. In these cases the
parent with care will not only benefit from her earnings and any
child tax credits they get but also the full amount of maintenance
paid. Taken together these measures will help reduce child poverty.
However guaranteeing maintenance might bring significant
behavioural impacts. Firstly it would undermine the major principle
behind child support ie firmly placing the responsibility for
maintaining children where it belongs—with the parents.
Secondly, the existence of a Government scheme for guaranteed
maintenance might actually worsen compliance. Because maintenance
was flowing to their children, non-resident parents would feel
that any effort on their part was unnecessary. Their payments
would be seen as going to the Treasury, and thus as taxation,
rather than their children. It would become an additional benefit
payment—effectively a lone parent premium.
It would also incur substantial costs. Based on average
maintenance levels for old and new scheme cases, the total gross
cost of a guaranteed maintenance scheme for current Child Support
Agency clients would be over £1 billion per annum. Without
a substantial improvement in compliance rates, the net costs might
approach £500 million in a full year.
And a guarantee of maintenance might encourage
a greater number of private parents with care to make claims for
maintenance, potentially making the annual total costs substantially
larger.
Question 4
The CSA Standards Committee Report presents damning
findings on the enforcement process: nearly two-thirds of enforcement
cases examined are inaccurate. Can you describe to the Committee
what urgent action is being taken to rectify this situation?
Inaccuracy in relation to internal procedures does
not mean that a case is inaccurate or incorrect in legal terms
and the Agency's performance in the area of enforcement has been
showing clear signs of progress. For example, in the 6 month period
1 April 04 to 30 September 04 the Agency took as many people to
court as in the whole of the previous year and in that year doubled
the earlier years performance. In addition in the same period
£1.2 milion has been collected by bailiffs acting on behalf
of the Agency, compared with £1.5 million, which was collected
during the whole of 2003-04.
Nonetheless, the Agency recognises the importance
of consistent compliance with internal procedures and the new
Enforcement Director will introduce a range of validation practices
to improve accuracy. We are also working with magistrates and
the courts to speed up enforcement proceedings.
Question 5
One of the major barriers to compliance and enforcement
is that parents are not obliged to keep the Agency informed of
their whereabouts. Are there standard procedures for staff to
follow to trace NRPs? Are these procedures adhered to?
The standard trace process will involve the following
steps:
— Departmental Central Index (DCI).
— Inland Revenue.
— Drivers Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).
— Local Authorities.
— Employers.
The Agency has access to a range of sources of information
needed to trace a non-resident parent including Departmental records,
the Inland Revenue, DVLA, local authorities, employers and accountants.
However, we do not legally have access to addresses or numbers,
nor to mobile telephone records.
Comprehensive procedures are in place to trace non
resident parents. The Agency has procedures which clearly lead
staff through all of the data sources available.
A specific form has been introduced to lead
staff step by step through the trace process. We have recently
revised our guidance for staff and introduced a management check
to ensure compliance with trace procedures. Internal Assurance
will review compliance with trace procedures as part of their
forward work programme.
Additional information as requested
The issue you raise about information passing between
the Child Support Agency and Jobcentre Plus regarding the £5
minimum payment required from non-resident parents on benefit
is one of a number of concerns that the Agency and Jobcentre Plus
have been jointly exploring in recent months. It is clear from
that work that issues need to be addressed in relation to information
passing on new Child Support applications, on notifications of
changes of circumstances, on contributions to maintenance (the
point you make) and on establishing payment of child maintenance
premia. Action is in hand to enhance work processes within the
Agency and in Jobcentre Plus and to enhance the way that exceptions
to the computer interface are handled correctly.
In relation to your specific question, the Agency
currently estimates that it has 22,000 cases where a maintenance
calculation (other than for a nil amount) has been made where
the non-resident parent is on benefit.
The number of cases where the £5 payment is
currently being made is around 11,500. Nearly half of non-resident
parents are in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance (the benefit most
frequently received by non-resident parents) for less than 13
weeks. It is therefore likely that deductions from benefit will
not be a feature for many non-resident parents in receipt of benefit;
we simply have to catch up in recovering outstanding payments
when the non-resident parent re-enters employment.
It is however worth noting that, even in the most
straightforward cases in relation to handling an application for
maintenance, there is likely to be a period of around 10 weeks
before a request is made to Jobcentre Plus to deduct a payment
from benefit and a further period of time before that is activated.
This is because of the need for staff to trace and contact the
non-resident parent, contact and discuss the position with the
parent with care, gather the relevant information and discuss
payment options.
I am afraid I cannot provide a reliable estimate
for the number of parents with care who have a maintenance calculation
in place (other than for a nil amount), where the non-resident
parent is also on benefit and where they are not having a minimum
payment deducted from their benefit payments.
| 
