---

Earl Peel: My Lords, what assurances will the Minister give that this highly regrettable situation will not impede the payment of the single farm payment next year? Is it a reality that next year's claims may come in before this year's claims have been dealt with?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl as usual has hit a good point. It is one of the reasons why I am so keen that we should start paying the full payments in February this year. If we make partial payments,
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1064
 
which would certainly be better than nothing, it may have some effect on the 2006 payments, which would be due at the end of the year.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—

Lord Carter: My Lords—

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.

Lord Carter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that under the old IACS scheme farmers were paid between January and June 2005, so the farmers who received their payment in June 2005 are likely to receive their next payment in either February or March this year? That is nine months, whereas under the old scheme it used to be 12 months between payments.

Lord Bach: My Lords, 11 subsidy schemes ran up until the CAP reform, which was supported by all sides of the House. My noble friend is right that the dates for those schemes differed, but a number of them meant that the window for paying them closed in the middle of the year. So there would have been farmers paid last in June or even July 2005.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the payments from the national reserve are held up in Scotland and that we are attending the conclusions? Can he give us any indication of when the size of the national reserve will be known?

Lord Bach: My Lords, very shortly.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is time that noble Lords opposite, the leadership of the NFU, and a Select Committee in another place recognised the complexities of this arrangement and the enormous benefits that we in England will have from the system of payment as compared with that in most of the Continent and in Wales and Scotland? Does he further agree that they strongly supported the system when it was first announced and should stop attacking the staff of the RPA and Defra in its implementation?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree very much with my noble friend. I am surprised that we find the attacks on the implementation of the scheme from those who supported it so warmly when it came in. The new financial system is part of the reform of the CAP, which signals the biggest shake-up in English farming for more than 30 years. The single payment scheme increases farmers' freedom to innovate and respond to changing consumer demands. Additionally, they have to meet new baseline standards for agriculture. Everyone agreed that this was a good change; I wish that they would support it now.
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1065
 

Child Support Agency

2.59 pm

Lord Skelmersdale asked Her Majesty's Government:

What changes they intend to make to the operation of the Child Support Agency.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency has been asked to undertake a root and branch review of the operations of the agency. He has reported his findings to Ministers, and an announcement will be made shortly.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I confess that I was expecting a slightly different Answer, because various activities have been revealed in speeches from the Secretary of State and in press briefings, not least the contracting-out of debt collecting pertaining to the Child Support Agency. How many cases are under review? The noble Lord will know that I have been in correspondence about one such case. It would be wrong for debts to be collected from absent parents in such circumstances, would it not?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there have been various stories in the media in the past few weeks, but I think it better that we await the announcement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make to Parliament in due course, following the report that we received from the chief executive. Notwithstanding the many challenges and problems that the CSA faces, £600 million a year is collected in maintenance for children. Clearly we want to do better than that, and one challenge that we face is that many non-resident parents do not face up to their responsibility to pay maintenance for their children. We are certainly looking for a much stronger enforcement effort by the CSA to help to make sure that we collect more money for more children.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, have the Government issued any guidelines or taken any other action to ensure that young men in school are taught about their responsibilities as fathers?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is not a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions, but I very much understand that issue. Going beyond the operational responsibilities of the Child Support Agency, I should say that we need to do much more to bring home to young people—and to all parents—their responsibility. When they split up, it is important that the children do not become a tug of war between the resident and non-resident parent and that we reinforce the rights and responsibilities of all parents, including responsibility for financial support for their children. I very much agree with the noble Lord.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend has emphasised—rightly, I am sure—that the
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1066
 
core of the problem of the CSA is that too many non-resident parents think that, when they break up with their partner, they simultaneously no longer need financially to support their children. That is disastrous for everyone concerned. The Inland Revenue may become a collection agency and collect money from defaulting families, which may be a good idea. So often, at the same time, it may pay tax credits to those defaulting families. Can we hope that at last the Inland Revenue might be willing to net the one sum against the other and thus ensure that money goes to the lone parent and her child?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for her work in this area and particularly for the work that she led in making the assessment scheme much easier to understand than the old scheme. She asked two hypothetical questions, neither of which I ought to answer, in anticipation of our Statement to Parliament. There is co-operation between HMRC and the CSA, and of course we wish to encourage more in future.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, what are the costs of the Child Support Agency—

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, how is it possible for the Treasury to justify payments to a body that is so utterly incompetent in every part of the kingdom?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would not underestimate the challenges and problems that the Child Support Agency faces. Equally, I re-emphasise to noble Lords that it is raising £600 million, that half a million children benefit and that the staff at the CSA work under very difficult circumstances, often caught in the middle of warring parents. It is easy to complain—I do not at all underestimate the problems faced—but we ought to acknowledge the good work still being undertaken.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, when I was preparing to ask this question, my initial thought was that I might quote the House of Commons Select Committee report calling the CSA a failing organisation that is in crisis, but I am afraid that I am not as brave as my acting leader in the other place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put her finger on a serious point by mentioning the Revenue. Does the Minister accept, as the Prime Minister said, that the CSA has lost the confidence of the public, its basic structural problems remain, it is not properly suited to carry out its task, and the handing over of its functions to the Revenue is long overdue?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not going down that speculative route for the reasons that I have already given. I certainly accept, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place, that some major issues around the structure, policy and operations of the CSA warrant the most serious consideration. I pay tribute to the Select
 
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1067
 
Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, which made interesting proposals for CSA reform. We have responded, but we are taking into account its recommendations in relation to the current review.

---