| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire): Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the new system is to work properly, once individuals have complained they should not get letters and demands from another office in the agency? They would be furious about that, but one of the central problems of the CSA is that the left hand and the right hand do not know what the other is doing. When individuals' earnings change, the officer will order less to be paid in maintenance, but it takes too long to get the information across.
Mr. Pawsey: That is a valid point. I have sought to persuade the chief executive of the CSA to appoint a named official to deal with each person's case, so that there is a direct point of reference. Miss Chant believes that that cannot be done because of the complexity of the agency's operations and because of its geographical spread. However, I look forward to proposals that will further improve the work of the agency.
My third issue is that of redress. The Select Committee previously commented on the practice of the Department of Social Security and the CSA and the way in which redress is given to those who have been harmed by maladministration. That is an especial concern of the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency I cannot recall--
Mr. Ronnie Campbell:
Blyth Valley.
Mr. Pawsey:
Thank you. The specific concern is about those who have been wrongly identified as the absent parent. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley has brought that point to the notice of the Select Committee on several occasions. I shall bring matters up to date. In the ombudsman's second report on the CSA, he included three further misidentification cases and added that he was still investigating a further three. Mr. Reid says, with an element of Scottish understatement:
I suspect that no one in the House will disagree with that.
In all fairness, I must stress that the number of such cases is limited. At the time of the Select Committee's first inquiry into the agency, we were told that, out of the 203,000 maintenance inquiry forms sent out between 1 April 1994 and 2 December 1994, 70 had gone to the wrong person. From 1 April 1995 to 31 January 1996, the number of identifications made in error, in which the CSA was at fault, amounted to 28 out of 170,000 cases. That is a welcome improvement and the agency undoubtedly deserves credit.
Both the Select Committee and the ombudsman believe, however, that, when misidentification has occurred, there must be a prima facie case for compensation. Clearly, the person wrongly identified has been the victim of a wrong and scandalous allegation. In the Select Committee's report last year, we recommended that financial compensation be paid to those who have been falsely identified as the absent parent.
The Select Committee was pleased that the Government have recently accepted the recommendation and, from 1 April this year, those wrongly identified as absent parents, through the fault of the agency, will receive a consolatory payment of £100. The House may feel that that is a small enough sum when compared to the magnitude of the false allegation.
The consolatory payment does not, however, preclude a request for more generous compensation for worry and distress. Nor will it stop the ombudsman recommending greater generosity should he deem it appropriate. I deeply regret the fact that consolatory payments, small as they are, are to be paid only from 1 April this year. Payments will not be retrospective. The Select Committee--most of its members are present in the Chamber--asks the Government to reconsider the principle of consolatory payments. If it is admitted that payment is due, it is surely entirely indefensible to withhold payment from those who suffered before April. The numbers are small and the amount of cash involved is small.
The Government have changed their policy on interest being paid on delayed payments. That is another change that must be welcomed. The Select Committee certainly applauds it. The ombudsman, in welcoming such changes, makes it clear that there should be a more fundamental reassessment within the DSS of its attitude to compensation and redress. A review is taking place and we look forward to a speedy and helpful conclusion.
We were disappointed by the Department's attitude to making payments for worry and distress caused by maladministration. The Department has always insisted that such payments will be made only where medical evidence can be produced. The Select Committee has always criticised that approach as being far too inflexible. There must surely be occasions--erroneous identification of an absent parent would be one--where the mere facts of the case present ample grounds for assuming exceptional worry and distress. I was pleased when Miss Chant suggested that the agency is moving towards that position.
The Select Committee believes that the Department should move away from its rigid insistence on a medical certificate to prove distress. The Select Committee asks for humane consideration. It will pursue with vigour those cases where it believes that compensation is being denied unreasonably.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even modest compensation, where the ombudsman finds in favour of the complainant and accepts that there has been maladministration, would be acceptable and more tangible than a report finding in favour of complaint, and that the agency should be required to make some compensation when a recommendation is made?
Mr. Pawsey:
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I watched my hon. Friend the Minister noting carefully what the hon. Gentleman said. My hon. Friend may refer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention when he contributes to the debate. I have utmost sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's approach.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
This is an extremely important subject and the debate will be far too short. We are debating a subject that has probably been a significant feature of most hon. Members' constituency mailbags, certainly for the past two years since the agency came into operation. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration took half an hour to introduce his topics, only an hour is left before the debate must be brought to an end. I hope that, in future, we can have at least three hours on these matters, especially when two Select Committees are involved in a major issue.
The Select Committee on Social Security has produced three reports on the Child Support Agency, the third quite recently. Two features have characterised the taking of evidence and the preparation of reports. First, there have been many principled objections to the CSA and its operations in general. Secondly, there have been some serious criticisms of its administrative ability and its lack of sensitivity in dealing with the individual cases of a large number of people.
The break-up of a partnership is a difficult and traumatic experience. When children are involved, it is difficult for both parents. It is also difficult for the child or children. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) wishes to talk about the difficulties that ensue.
The Social Security Committee's second report drew attention to the descriptions of parents--the "parent with care" and the "absent parent". The parent who is not living with the children who are a product of the partnership is, of course, absent, but that does not mean that he or she does not care for them, is not interested in them and does not want to have a long-term relationship with them. Indeed, the opposite is the case. I hope that the Minister will recognise that that is not a minor point of political correctness. Descriptions are important because much flows from them. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
Many of those who have objected to the CSA have done so on the ground that it collects money to meet targets set by the Secretary of State. It attempts to meet those targets. It has often gone for targets that are easy to deal with rather than the more difficult ones because that has been the way to meet short-term objectives. The amount of money collected and handed back to the Treasury is considerable, whereas the amount collected to benefit the children involved in break-ups is very much smaller.
There has been much discussion about the administrative procedures and principles that lie behind the CSA; little consideration has been given to what is happening to children, who have often gone through a traumatic experience, and who continue to do so. As the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, the inefficiencies and lack of sensitivity of the CSA in dealing with many cases have led to further problems for children and exacerbated an already difficult situation in relationships.
There are many who strongly supported the approach of a court order system for settlements of marital break-up and dispute. They did so because there would be an element of discretion. The court would have been able to consider the situation in the round, take a sensible view of things and apply orders accordingly. In its initial stages, the CSA had no discretion to enable it to operate any half-sensible policy. That resulted in many difficulties.
The Secretary of State sets collection targets. The Government's obsession with targeting is not necessarily helpful. It leads to a culture of grabbing the fastest return possible, which permeates the agency. Those who work in the agency should be considering the needs and happiness of children of partnerships that, unfortunately, have broken up. Perhaps they should consider the parties and the children involved in a more caring way than they do at present.
I shall be brief, because I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. It is important to say, however, that the Social Security Committee's role in these matters must be to try to reflect public opinion about the efficiency and administration of the CSA. The Committee must try to ensure that the public's opinions are taken up in debates--as we, its members, will try to do this morning.
Opposition to the Child Support Agency will not diminish or go away because of the high level of demand that it places on parents who are no longer in a partnership and who no longer live with their children--I do not want to use the title "absent parents" because many of them are not. They feel bitter and aggrieved at the way in which the CSA has treated them, and we must reflect that.
The main conclusion of the most recent report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration states:
There have been enormous changes--112 have already been made. The report continues:
Serious questions must be asked about an agency that was rushed in in such a way, which has resulted in massive public criticism and huge mailbags for Members of Parliament.
Initially, the CSA was not able to deal even with the criticisms of Members of Parliament. I am not asking for privileges for Members of Parliament--I do not think that anyone is asking that--but if a constituent cannot get anything done by a Government Department or Government agency, they properly go to their Member of Parliament, who rightly demands a rapid response and rapid treatment. What credibility do Members of
Parliament or this place have if they, too, cannot get an answer from a Government Department? That matter must be considered thoroughly.
In 1994-95, only 44 per cent. of all assessments were accurate. I know that claims have been made of an improvement in accuracy, but only 44 per cent.--less than half--is a dismal performance by any stretch of the imagination. There has also been a failure to meet assessment targets, so arrears of payment have built up, which is a serious matter.
In 1995, unpaid maintenance reached a total of £701 million, which is a serious figure. I recall dealing with cases in which the failure to pay maintenance to the family or the caring parent with the child meant that they had to go back to the Department of Social Security to try to secure a crisis loan to get through a process that should have been resolved in the first place. That is bureaucratic inefficiency gone mad, and must be examined.
From the evidence that the Select Committee took, there were suggestions that self-employed people were treated much less rigorously than employed people, and that self-employed people could deflate their income by transferring legitimate personal expenditure to business expenditure, thus falsely lowering their income and the amount that they were liable to pay. That is easy to do and must be examined much more assiduously.
There are concerns about poor customer service, which we have referred to in our report. There are also extreme concerns about the poor quality of information and its comprehensibility.
We must consider other concerns. The level of assessment that is being made by the Child Support Agency often means that the parent who is no longer in direct care of the children--who is described as the absent parent in all the reports--is often left with insufficient money on which to survive. I think that, in our advice surgeries, we have all met people whose partnership has broken up, who are no longer in direct day-to-day charge of the children, but who want to have a good relationship with them.
Women and men have visited my surgery who are no longer in a direct day-to-day relationship and who have been told to pay such a huge amount of money to the CSA that they can barely live themselves, never mind find the fare to visit the children, buy presents for them or take them on holiday, which are all important for a proper caring relationship between parents and their children. The complete lack of discretion in the CSA formula has led to many of the problems.
Likewise, where parents on income support are in care of the children, the lack of a sufficient maintenance disregard means that they are no better off. The state is benefiting because it is taking money from the so-called absent parent, but the money is not going through to the parent to pass on to the children. There should be a sufficient maintenance disregard. The Select Committee has discussed that in previous reports.
"I regard cases of this kind as being particularly serious and having the potential for ruining stable relationships."
"It has not been our intention to investigate or question the policy decisions relating to the CSA. Recent changes introduced by the Government are an implicit acknowledgment that . . . not all such decisions were correct."
"What is evident, however, both from a mass of circumstantial evidence and from the Ombudsman's report, is that any policy deficiency was cruelly exacerbated by administrative incompetence. Despite the recent experience of the DLA, basic measures to improve the handling of correspondence and complaints, the training of staff, replying to MPs, dealing with backlogs of work, were all delayed far too long. We trust that any review arising from the experience at the CSA will take much more seriously the need to learn permanent lessons about how to administer any major new project."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |