|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
9. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): From what sources additional military helicopters for Afghanistan will be drawn. 
10. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Pursuant to his oral statement of 10 July 2006, Official Report, columns 1132-35, on troop levels in Afghanistan, from what sources additional equipment needs in Afghanistan will be met. 
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): We will provide two additional CH47 helicopters, one in September and one in October. One will be drawn from the Falklands, and might be replaced by a commercial contract. The other will be drawn from the Chinook-47 deployable pool. Those changes, coupled with recently announced increases in helicopter hours, will give us the flexibility required to meet the demand. Helicopter force levels will remain under constant review.
Tim Loughton: My constituent has just received an e-mail from her brother, who is serving in Afghanistan, which ends:
If it werent for
the inherent stubbornness and capabilityof the honest Tommy to
simply get things done, the true
professionalism of the best armed forces on this earth coupled with the exceptional efforts of a few exceptional officers, the prospects for this campaign would be bleak indeed.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential that the lives of those brave British Tommys taking part in this vital mission should not be put at risk due to poor availability or poor positioning of essential kit, including helicopters? In that respect, how many helicopters are currently fit for purpose? What is he doing to reduce the number that are currently out of service?
Des Browne: The force that we have deployed in Afghanistan, and the additional forces that I announced to be deployed in Afghanistan, were designed by the commanders and approved by the chiefs of staff. I have not, and nor have any of my predecessors, refused to provide anything that has been requested for our operations in Afghanistan. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have provided additional support for the helicopter fleet in particular.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The mere fact that we are replacing helicopters elsewhere with contractors suggests that there is a shortage of helicopters. I, too, am receiving communications from relatives of people deployed in Afghanistan who are concerned about the level of support. Can the Secretary of State tell mehow many other countries in NATO are deploying helicopters in Afghanistan?
Des Browne: If the hon. Gentleman receives such communication, he should pass it on to me immediately, and I will deal with it. I look forward to receiving from him tomorrow the communication that he has received in relation to those matters. The conclusion that he draws about the deployment of those two helicopters is incorrect. The fact that we are deploying helicopters from the Falklands suggests that the military are doing what they do. If resource can be deployed from somewhere else to do that work, that seems to me to be appropriate. Again, if the hon. Gentleman has concerns that come to him from constituents, he should pass them on to me and I will deal with them.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. John Hutton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's plans for reform of the child support system.
Parents, whether they live together or not, have a moral as well as a legal responsibility to support their children. Relationships end, but responsibilities do not. Government and society have a clear interest in ensuring that those responsibilities are honoured. That was the foundation on which the Child Support Act 1991 rested, and I believe that those are the right foundations on which to build any future system of child support. But as we know, despite the best efforts of its staff the overall performance of the Child Support Agency has fallen well short of expectations. When we came to office the agency cost more to run than it collected in maintenance, and it has been taking longer to process claims than the court arrangements that it replaced.
The Child Support, Pensions and Social SecurityAct 2000 made important changes, simplifying maintenance calculations and allowing parents with care on benefit to keep up to £10 of any maintenance received. Since 1997, the agency has nearly doubled the number of cases receiving maintenance payments. However, as we all know, problems have persisted. Only a minority of cases handled by the CSA receive any maintenance at all. There is a backlog of around 300,000 cases. Debts of over £3 billion have built up, with limited prospects of recovery. There is a net cost to the taxpayer of around £200 million per year. Levels of customer service, although they have improved recently, have never reached the standards of quality and consistency that the public are entitled to expect.
The need for radical overhaul is clear, but I do not believe that the continuing problems are due to a failing on the part of the staff of the agency. Rather, I believe that they are due to a failing of the policy framework, and of the system that the staff are being asked to run. That is why, in February, I asked Sir David Henshaw to redesign our system of child support. He has now presented his recommendations to me. Copies are available in the Vote Office and on my Department's website, together with the Government's response.
Sir David has recommended an entirely new system for child support that will be simpler to use and administer, will be tougher on parents who do not face up to their responsibilities and will make a bigger impact on the reduction in child poverty, while delivering value for money for the taxpayer. His recommendations have four main elements.
First, Sir David believes that the system should focus on tackling child poverty by ensuring that parents with care keep more of the maintenance owed to them. He recommends that lone parents on benefit should be allowed to keep more maintenance through a significant increase in the extent to which child maintenance is disregarded in income-related benefits.
Sir David believes that a new system should promote greater personal
responsibility by ensuring that, wherever possible, we help parents
reach their own financial arrangements for the maintenance
of their children. That means reconfiguring advice services to improve the quality and accessibility of information and guidance for parents. Sir David also believes that the Government should remove the requirement that parents with care on benefits make an application for child maintenance through the CSA even when a perfectly satisfactory private arrangement already exists. As a first step towards getting maintenance flowing to children, Sir David recommends that, with up to a fifth of potential child support cases not having their fathers names on their birth certificates, we should consider the joint registration of births.
When parents cannot reach an amicable agreement, the parents with care need to be confident that the enforcement arrangements will be effective. The third element of Sir David's recommendations is the introduction of new, tougher enforcement powers, including the withdrawal of passports. He also recommends exploring the potential to make better use of existing financial penalties.
Fourthly, Sir David proposes that there should be a clean break with the past. He believes that the delivery of child support requires a fresh start with a new organisation. He believes that there should be no automatic conversion of cases from the two existing schemes to the new redesigned system. Instead, parents wishing to use the new system should be able to reapply. He recommends that there should be a separate residuary body to manage down and enforce old debt, and that we should consider how best to give the new organisation power to charge clients for using the new system.
Sir David has consulted widely in producing his recommendations. I am grateful to him for his work, and grateful to all who have contributed to it. As his report shows, tougher enforcement and a substantially higher disregard could increase the number of children receiving maintenance to about 1.75 million, compared with just 1.1 million today. The changes will lift many more children out of poverty, and a smaller, more focused agency that deals with significantly fewer cases will deliver better value to the taxpayer, with administrative costs substantially lower over the long run. Although there is still a great deal of detail to be dealt with, I think it right that the Government should signal their view of the way ahead.
We have decided to accept the principal recommendations. We will therefore bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to remove the requirement that all parents with care claiming benefit are treated as applying for child maintenance. We agree with Sir Davids recommendation that there should be a higher disregard, but that must ensure a fair deal for taxpayers and avoid sending any signal that families might be better off apart than together, so we intend significantly to increase the level of the current disregard of £10. Details will be confirmed later this year.
those changes will help more families to receive more maintenance and
reduce the risk of child poverty. They reflect both the rights of
children to be properly maintained by their parents and the right of
societyto ensure that parental responsibilities are properly
discharged. We also agree that the delivery of child support requires a
fresh start. We will therefore create a
new organisation to replace the CSA and we will strengthen enforcement powers.
We intend to go even further and seek legislation to strengthen the powers available to the agency to recover maintenance from those who repeatedly fail to pay, including through the imposition of curfews as wellas the suspension of passports. We will explore publicising successful prosecutions, including the feasibility of naming those who have been prosecuted. We will continue the CSAs current operational improvement plan, which is already improving our capacity to trace people who owe maintenance and which should see the CSA collecting a further£250 million in unpaid maintenance.
There is still a great deal of detail in Sir Davids report that should now properly be the subject of fuller consultation and debate. In particular, we want to consult on the best way to allow existing claimants either to move to private arrangements or to make a claim to the new system. We must ensure that, where people currently receive maintenance through the CSA, they continue to do so, if they wish, under the new system, without disrupting the payment of child maintenance.
We should consult on how best to deal with the legacy of debt that is left, while protecting the interests of both families and the taxpayer. We should also consult on the appropriate role for the courts in the new approach, how to improve parental responsibility from birthincluding the possibility of compulsory registration for fathersand how we can further simplify and improve the current assessment, collection and enforcement processes. We will also consult on the details of any new charging regime.
In advance of legislation, I intend to publish a White Paper later this year, which will set out in greater detail the way forward in all of these areas. In the meantime, I have asked Sir David to report to me on the policy and implementation issues that arise from his first report. During the process of change, agency staff are entitled to expect the full support of my Department, and they will have it. In particular, we will do all we can to help and support staff through the transition to the new organisation and in their efforts to ensure that children and families receive the maintenance to which they are properly entitled.
The original proposals for child support had a wide and broad measure of support in the House, but the consensus on aims was never translated into a consensus on means: we must not repeat the same mistake. That is why I want the new arrangements now be established to command the broadest possible measure of agreement. I believe that there is a clear sense, both in the House and outside it, that our system of child support needs radical change. It must offer better value for money for the taxpayer, enforce the rights of children and the responsibilities of parents more successfully and ensure that families and children in particular do not slide into poverty when parents split up.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con): I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in letting me have a copy of the statement in advance, although he will understand that we have not yet had a chance to absorb the details of Sir Davids report.
I am sorry to tell the Secretary of State that his statement will be a disappointment to the 1.5 million families trapped in the shambles of the Child Support Agency, particularly the 900,000 who are trapped in the old system. The statistics are familiar to the House and the Secretary of State recited them again today, so I shall not repeat them, but what those people wanted to hear today was, above all, a timetable for moving them on to a new system of assessment. What they have got is yet another delay for further reports and more consultation, so they will feel let down once again.
The Government have invested half a billion pounds of taxpayers money in their redesign of the CSA system and now propose to turn their back on that investment and start again. The headline in press releases this morning is CSA to be scrapped, but the reality is that the existing, failing CSA will be rebranded and left with its difficult case load while the political spotlight will be shifted to a new body with low costs, no legacy and a carefully controlled onflow of suitable new cases.
We share the Governments stated determination to maintain the obligation on both parents to contribute to the upbringing and support of a child. We also share the view that, where those arrangements can be made voluntarily, they should be. But in the real world, that will often not be the case, and it is not obvious what the incentive of a high benefit disregard will achieve in those cases that are not settled voluntarily. If a CSA application is made, we are back in exactly the position that we are now. If a CSA application is not made, we are back in exactly the position that we are now, with the difference that there will not even be a theoretical accrual of liability by the absent parent to offset the states payments to support the lone parent and her children. The absent parent will be totally off the hook, so what price the Governments commitment to both parents contributing to their childrens support?
Any advantage that the proposed change will bring lies solely in the cases where voluntary arrangements are made. Does the Secretary of State have any evidence about the proportion of benefit cases that that might involve? I note that, when he first referred to Sir Davids recommendation to remove the requirement that parents on benefits with care must make a CSA application, he used the phrase,
when there is a perfectly satisfactory private arrangement already in place.
But when he went on to announce that the Government would legislate to remove the requirement, there was no reference to the qualifying condition. So perhaps he can clarify whether the requirement will be removed in all cases, or only in cases where there is evidence that a satisfactory voluntary private agreement exists.
I also assume that the higher
level of disregard will apply to all payments, not just those made
voluntarily. If that is the case, while that disregard may have a
significant impact on tackling child poverty in lone parent families,
it will not operate as an incentive to
agree voluntary arrangements, which I understood to be the Secretary of States original motivation for using the higher disregard in those cases only.
We have heard nothing of how parents not on benefit will be encouraged to make voluntary arrangementsother than vague reference to a threat to charge for the new agencys services. I suspect that on an otherwise rather dismal day that may be the only thought that raises some merriment in single parent households that are trapped in the CSA bureaucracy at the moment.
Most importantly, the Secretary of State failed to deal with the key issue: the robustness of the assessment process, which was the focus of the 2000 Act reformssacrificing precision for simplicitythat are now acknowledged to have failed. Is the right hon. Gentleman really proposing to set up a new body attempting to assess and constantly reassess a payment that is due on the basis of fluctuating or uncertain in-year income? Unless the assessment process is made robust for those difficult cases, no system of collection will be effective. If the value of the claim cannot be accurately assessed on a real-time basis, no enforcement system, however draconian, will work.
There is no reason to suppose that the new agency will be any more successful than the old if it is constantly struggling to establish and maintain an accurate basis of assessment. When the right hon. Gentleman described Sir Davids remit as a redesign of the system, I understood that he was prepared to tackle this issue, but there is nothing in the statement on itnothing, as the product of the past six months work, except a reference to it as something thatrequires further consultation and debate. There is no recognition of the fundamental importance of the assessment tool to a robust system of child maintenance.
We will look carefully at Sir Davids report and its implications. In the meantime, I have couple of specific questions for the right hon. Gentleman. Can he give the House an estimate of the cost of the proposals? Obviously, the £200 million that the CSA is collecting for the Exchequer as a contribution to the agencys costs will be lost. In fact, far from scrapping the agency, there will be the cost of maintaining two separate bodies, so can he tell us what the overall cost will be?
Can the Secretary of State also tell us what the programme will be for migration from the existing system to the new system, and over what period that will take place? Presumably, some people will have to remain with the residual agency, as access to the new system will have to be rationed at the outset in order to prevent it from being swamped. How will the Secretary of State deliver a perception of fairness in that migration process, as being on the new system will bring a huge financial benefit but it seems inevitable that that will have to be rationed over a number of years?
the Secretary of State give us a bit more of a feel about the level of
the disregard? If he cannot give the exact amount of that, can he at
least give some indication of it, because it is very difficult to
understand the proposals without that? In his comments, he recognised
that there is a risk that introducing a large disregard might create a
perverse incentive for struggling families to give up and split up.
What work has he done to establish to his own satisfaction that that will not result from the changes that he has announced today? Finally, can he tell us who will run this new body? Will they be the same people who run and staff the existing CSA?
We are disappointed by this statement, as will be hundreds of thousands of lone parents. It is mightily thin on substance. It consists of a rebranding exercise with no change to the substantive arrangements in, I suspect, a majority of cases, and that is not a solution for the families involved. We recognise that there is a need to make the system more effective, and to be more pragmatic about ways to increase the flow of maintenance, without losing sight of the underlying principles. Unfortunately however, it is not clear that the proposals address the fundamental flaws in the system. Having just poured half a billion pounds down the drain in respect of the CS2 system, the Government cannot safely move on and start again without being 100 per cent. sure that the real underlying causes of the problem have been identified and fixed.
Mr. Hutton: It is unclear to meand I suspect to most of my hon. Friendswhat the hon. Gentlemans view is of Sir David Henshaws report, and whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to give any indication today as to whether any of the proposals in it attract his interest or support. I find it bizarre in the extreme that he seems to want us to continue with the existing arrangements, as most of us, irrespective of which party we belong to, know that that would serve only to trap people inside a failing system that is not delivering for parents. [Hon. Members: That is what the Government are doing.] I note the comments from Conservative Members, so I think that I should send a copy of the statement to the hon. Gentleman again so that he can have another look at it, along with Sir Davids report.
These are undoubtedly the most radical reforms to the child support system that any Minister has brought before this House since the establishment of the Child Support Agency. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take a little more time to study the detail of the statement and of Sir Davids report. These reforms will address the fundamental flaws in the current system. We are encouraging parents to reach their own agreementsI would have thought, given all the ideological baggage that the Conservative party is keen to lose at the moment, that that at least would be one thing that they would want to support today. But, sadly, we did not hear such words of support.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): Yes, you did.
Mr. Hutton: Well, I do not think any Labour Members heard such words of support for that fundamental change.
We will remove
the obligation on all cases; the hon. Gentleman asked about that, and
we certainly intend to do that. The maintenance disregard will of
course apply only in relation to benefit casesobviously, it
will not apply to other cases. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the
assessment process. I think that there is broad support for that; Sir
David Henshaw certainly
found broad support for the reforms introduced in the 2000 Act, and we do not intend to revisit the issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked four specific questions. He asked about the estimate of long-term operating costs. Sir David has estimated that the changes to the administration of child support will probably save us 50 per cent. of the current operating costs of the agency. Of course, there will be other costs associated with making the changes, but they will depend on the detail of the proposals that we bring forward in the White Paper in the autumn.
On migration, Sir David recognised that more work will need to be done on that. I felt that it was important that Members could see the outlines of the new system as soon as possible; that is why I asked Sir David to bring his initial recommendations forward as quickly as possible. He himself recognised that a significant amount of work still needs to be done in that regard. It will be done as a matter of urgency, and I will take it as my responsibility to ensure that Members in all parts of the House have full sight of, and full involvement in, the development of that important work.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I can give further details today on the maintenance disregard. All that I can say to him and to Members in all parts of the House is that it will not be 100 per cent., because such a figure would send the wrong signal about the balance of responsibilities between parents and taxpayers. Some interesting American evidence shows that, if one focuses more on dealing with child poverty as the principal objective in child support systems, there is, in particular, no discernible impact on incentives to work. That is a very important lesson that we need to reflect on. The hon. Gentleman also asked who is going to run the new arrangements and with the greatest of respect to him, it is just a little too early to name any names in that regard.
Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North) (Lab): May I congratulate the Secretary of State on todays statement? This has been a sorry 15 years of the CSAs history that we have had to bear. Does he agree that the two principal factors that we need to consider are parental responsibility for maintaining their own children and attacking the child poverty target? Does he further agree that the full compliance of parents would have a significant impact on the child poverty figure?
Mr. Hutton: I agree strongly with what my hon. Friend has said. He and the other Members of the Work and Pensions Select Committee made it very clear in their most recent report on the CSA that it really was time for the Government to consider setting up a new organisation that could pursue the very important objectives set out in it. I can confirm to him and to the House that those will be the principal objectives of the new system, and I am confident that, in the light of the arrangements that I have set out today, we can make those responsibilities stick.
David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): May I thank the Secretary of
State for his typical courtesy in making available a copy of the
statement and of the documents
so far in advance of todays oral statement? May I also congratulate Sir David Henshaw and his team on completing this work in such a short time? Does not the speed of Sir Davids work contrast with the Governments own tardiness in dealing with this issue since 1997 and, indeed, since the 2005 general election? I remind the Secretary of State that since that election, we have had a review of the CSAs future, followed by a redesign of the policy on the CSA. We are now being offered today a consultation on the CSAs future, to be followed by a White Paper on the CSAs future. If the Secretary of States own document is to be believed, that will followed merely by
an ambition...to see some aspects of the new system in place from 2008.
some aspects of the new system
not sufficient to allow for a full redesign,
The Secretary of State said today that the CSA is going to be scrapped, which is what we have heard according to all the spin outside this place. He had previously said that he would not scrap it until he was clear what it was going to be replaced with. What is it going to be replaced with? Is it not astonishing that all that he can say today, in paragraph 55 of his own document, about the CSAs future replacement is that there are a range of approaches that could be takento the structure of the governance of such an organisation, and that an intensive programme of work will be undertaken, including full consultation with staff, to figure out a way forward? Is it really acceptable that, after 11 years in powerthat is how long this Government will have been in power when these measures will, so the Secretary of State says, be implementedhe still does not know what he intends to replace the CSA with?
Is the agency going to remain under the DWP? Is it still going to be run by the existing chief executive, and is it going to be based at the existing locations? If so, is this not going to end up being a rebadging, rather than a fundamental replacement of the existing agency? The Secretary of State indicated that he intends to reinforce enforcement powers. Why has he proposed to introduce curfews for non-resident parents who are not adhering to their child support obligations when that proposal was not made by Sir David Henshaw? Will he tell us how effective that is likely to be? Is it likely to be as ineffective as previous Government gimmicks, such as withdrawing driving licences? That measure was used only 11 times in four and a half years.
We welcome the new emphasis on
people making their own arrangements and the higher disregard that Sir
David recommended and that the Secretary of State has undertaken to
consider, but will he assure us that he will not use a charging
mechanism for resident parents who have to use the agency and have had
deal with an incompetent service over the previous13 years of the agencys life, and who would be astonished to have to pay for the use of this incompetent agency in the future? Have the Government gone far enough in giving the new CSA access to the sort of income details that it would be able to get if it were part of Her Majestys Revenue and Customs, and the ability to deduct money directly at source?
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|