Child Support Agency Cases in Mid Dorset

Speech by Annette Brooke delivered to Jane Kennedy MP - Minister for Work on Tue 30th Nov 2004

Speaking on CSA cases in Mid Dorset

Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I want to use this opportunity to highlight just a few of the problems experienced by the many constituents who contact me about the difficulties that they are experiencing with the Child Support Agency. I realise that almost every MP must have a similar size mailbag on this issue, so it is not surprising that the CSA has written off more than £2 billion of uncollected child maintenance since it was set up. In addition to illustrating the all-too-common problems experienced, I wish to highlight the tragedies underlying the facts. To do so, I want to concentrate on one particular case.

I first met my constituent, Ms E, in 2001. She initially became involved with the agency in 1993. I made a personal commitment that I would do my utmost to help her. At that stage, I had no direct experience of the Child Support Agency, and I had no idea of the difficulties that lay ahead. The agency tells me that between 1994 and 1997, it unsuccessfully tried to find a "confident" address for the husband, to whom I will now refer as Mr. X, despite receiving information from Ms E and other Government departments.

At one stage, Mr. X behaved very violently, and forced Ms E to sign that she would not claim maintenance. The violence continued on and off, and in 1998, Mr. X was sentenced to 60 hours' community service. Not surprisingly, Ms E became extremely distressed, and felt that she just could not cope with the system any more. On 21 May 1997, the case was closed, as good cause had been accepted, because of the risk of harm to her. However, she wrote to the CSA in July 1999, requesting that her case be reopened, but did not receive a reply until 2 October 2000—a delay of 15 months. The agency has explained that that was unfortunately due to the work in hand at that time.

More attempts were made to contact Mr. X between October 2000 and April 2001, but they elicited a straight refusal by Mr. X to confirm any details or to complete the maintenance inquiry form. The agency gave up entirely on 9 April 2001, although Ms E was advised that it would issue an interim maintenance order in February 2002. My inquiries revived the processes in March 2002.

The agency sent a further maintenance inquiry form to Mr. X at an address provided by Ms E, and an inquiry was sent to the Inland Revenue. However, the agency wrote to me blandly in July that year to say that

"to date no information has been received",

and to apologise for not even making progress with action on information that had been supplied about a vehicle driven by Mr. X.

At that stage, my constituent was awarded a paltry £85 in compensation for all the inefficiencies. She returned the cheque.

The agency requested a physical description of Mr. X. That had long since been supplied, but nevertheless a further photograph was sent. In July 2002, the agency assured me that if Mr. X failed to comply with the request for information he would be taken to court, with a possible fine of £1,000. I wrote a further letter to the agency in September 2002 pointing out that over eight years no help had been received from Ms E's former husband, that information had been repeatedly supplied, that as a community sentence had been given names and addresses must be available, and that at that time the children were seeing their father nearly every weekend at his parents' house.

A reply dated 24 September 2002 said that Mr. X had not attended an arranged interview, and that the agency was preparing an interview under caution. Mr. X did not turn up for that interview, but no follow-up action appeared to have been taken. On 23 October 2002 I wrote to the then chief executive of the CSA, Mr. Smith, asking whether, given the eight-year wait and the inertia demonstrated by the agency, the case could be given national priority. No progress was made. On 27 November 2002 I wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, but my letter was simply passed back to the chief executive of the agency.

On 20 December 2002, the CSA informed me that it had now received new details of Mr. X and would be arranging another interview. Mr. X rang the agency on 4 February 2003 to say that he could not fill in the form that it had sent because he was waiting for financial information. At least a proven address had finally been confirmed—but apparently the face-to-face team works only from nine to five from Monday to Friday and home visits are undertaken reluctantly, so no progress was made.

Was this not, by now, a pretty exceptional case, given that there could have been more persistent chasing? I understand that there has been a fear of violence over the years, but is not some protection offered to face-to-face teams in such cases?

On 24 June 2003 I heard that accounts had been received from Mr. X, but to date still no payments have been received. The current position is that Ms E has raised questions about the income declared by Mr. X, given his present lifestyle.

I can conclude only that the agency has made no more than token efforts to obtain any maintenance for Ms E's daughters. There has been no consistent and persistent attempt over the years to challenge the many prevarications, or indeed in recent months to check information supplied by Mr. X. Enforcement action has now been initiated, and Ms E completed a long form earlier this month. So far she has been rewarded with yet another form to complete, this time 36 pages long. I do not think that she can cope with the new form.

I need the Minister to understand how my constituent feels. She has been left struggling for 11 years; she finds herself drained of effort, and has no confidence in anyone. She cannot afford to work without the maintenance, although she would have liked to pursue her career. She feels that her children have been denied a reasonable lifestyle for 10 years. In the case of Mr. X, we are not talking about somebody who has fled the country. Throughout this long period, my constituent's ex-husband has never lived further than two miles from his place of birth.

Ms E asks:

"Why is it taking so long for my rights and the rights of my children to be recognised?"

Christmas is a very hard time for her. She feels upset and angry that she cannot provide for her children as she would wish. An undertaking from the Minister that she will personally monitor this case until a conclusion is reached might provide some hope for my constituent this Christmas.

I want to comment briefly on some other issues that I frequently encounter, and to refer to six particular cases. In the first, the husband and wife are each in a second partnership. The wife receives no maintenance for her children from the previous marriage, despite a long history of trying to work through the agency; the husband is faced with numerous errors and is being asked to pay too much. The result is a phenomenal strain on the new partnership, and particular difficulties in the relationships with each set of children. That case highlights inconsistencies in the intensity with which people are pursued, and in the degree of enforcement.

In the second case, a husband who was in a second relationship had the new formula applied to him after an interval of many years; the previous wife had not requested maintenance. He checked with the CSA to see whether he was likely to be required to make payments in future. He then took on a large mortgage in order to accommodate a total of five children. Of course, the new formula does not take into account housing costs, which are very high in my part of the world, and he was simply unable to pay the amount imposed on him. Personnel at the agency warned him that the bailiffs would be sent in. He became absolutely desperate. I could not persuade the agency to phase payments in a way that he felt he could cope with. Apparently, he has just given up his job. That does not seem a satisfactory outcome. A case such as this emphasises the inflexibility of the current system and the often unintended consequences.

In the third case, the wife informed the CSA of her former husband's employer. The CSA contacted the employer and was told that it had never employed her former husband. The CSA just accepted that as a true answer, and I have had to intervene to make sure that further employment checks are made. The wife felt that the CSA simply did not believe her, and that she was being regarded as a liar.

In the fourth case, a letter from a constituent, written in November of this year, states:

"I have now been waiting since 4 August 2003 and still nothing. They have all the details."

In acting on this letter, I received a prompt reply from the CSA, which is good. It now says that it will establish why the deduction-from-earnings order has not been made. But are there no follow-up procedures within the agency itself?

In the fifth case, Mr. T has been advised that the CSA will continue to require payments based on the old system, but that it has calculated that his current payments of some £80 per week for his one child would fall to £27 per week if he were assessed under the new system. The failures of the new computer system are well documented. My constituent feels that this now substantial delay in changing to the new system is causing him considerable hardship.

In a sixth case, a former husband and wife would both rather opt out of the CSA system because of the increasing incompetence that they face. My constituent writes:

"A massive increase has been imposed on the maintenance payment I have had to make this month without prior notice or opportunity to review the facts, at a particularly expensive time of year, and I have correspondence from them which shows a different calculation. My ex-wife and I are not confident that the standards offered by the CSA are ever likely to improve and furthermore, and perhaps more sinister, is that our children do not appear to be the prime concern of the people at the CSA."

That is a very telling point. My constituent continues:

"To this end, we want the CSA to cease its involvement in our case and let us take control of our own affairs with regard to the wellbeing of our children—something we feel the CSA has gravely overlooked."

They both signed a document of intent and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether they can manage their own affairs in the way they propose. That would save me having to write a letter.

Unsurprisingly, I believe that the CSA should be scrapped, so that a balance can be found between rigidity and unfairness and the complexities of coping with individual cases. It seems essential to me that, for the difficult cases, there must be an individual-based system. I would like to see a system based on family courts to deal with cases that are not easily resolved, and I would also like to see the Inland Revenue take over some of the functions of the CSA.

Many people welcomed the system because they all accepted that the non-resident parent should contribute in some way, but the system introduced by the previous Government is not working and it is always a problem to try to fix something that is not working. There are now probably many aspects that are beyond the current Government's control and the new computer system has thrown the system into even greater disarray. Is it not time to bite the bullet, genuinely put children first and introduce a system that will achieve precisely that?

Jane Kennedy (Minister for Work): I would like to start by emphasising how committed I and my ministerial colleagues are to creating an efficient, effective child support service. The new child support scheme is simple, transparent and easier to understand. Ultimately, it will ensure that money gets more quickly to more children. Indeed, already more and more cases are being dealt with under the new scheme, and clients and staff tell us how much they like and understand the new simpler calculation. I add the caveat, "when it works as it should". From the case described in such graphic detail by the hon. Lady, it is clear that it not working as it should in all circumstances.

I would say that, in general, MPs' surgeries tend to be filled with constituents who come to complain about public service failure. We do not generally encounter those who are perfectly happy with the service that they are receiving or those who are complimentary about it. I will speak in general terms about the CSA's work and what is being done to improve the agency's working, though I will try to touch on some of the hon. Lady's points.

The Child Support Agency is now effectively clearing thousands of cases each week. More than 33,000 of the poorest families are now benefiting from child maintenance premium payments, which means that, for the first time, parents on benefit see a real advantage from any maintenance paid and at a time when they most need it. Also, because the new scheme is so much easier to understand, parents are more able to make their own arrangements without involving the agency. The one exception is parents who are in receipt of benefits. The interactive calculator on the CSA's internet site regularly gets over 25,000 visits every month, so the hon. Lady can see that the new child support scheme is starting to make a real contribution to supporting children.

As the hon. Lady will be aware, since the new scheme was introduced in March 2003, the level of service given to some of the agency's clients has, due to difficulties with Electronic Data Systems Corporation's new IT and telephony service, still fallen well short of what they are entitled to receive. For that, I apologise. I am not going to pretend that I and my ministerial colleagues have not been disappointed, and I know that the agency, too, has been frustrated that more parents have not been able to experience the improvements that the new scheme has to offer. However, it continues to work closely with the computer supplier, EDS, to resolve its technical problems, and it is making progress.

Staff in the agency have to deal with often very sensitive and complex issues, and they deal with people who are in emotionally delicate circumstances, when relationships have broken down. I pay tribute to the staff who work in an already difficult job and who have shown dedication in trying to shield clients from the worst impact of the technical problems the agency has been experiencing.

The means of getting money flowing is a key issue for those of the hon. Lady's constituents on whose behalf she has written to the chief executive, and I commend the diligence with which she pursues her constituents' cases. Achieving compliance from non-resident parents is a key part of the work of a large number of the agency's staff. It is not true that there is no follow up. At all stages of a case, staff take action to ensure that non-resident parents accept their responsibility and comply with the maintenance calculation. Even before then, staff encourage non-resident parents to make voluntary payments to the parent with care, while they are waiting for a calculation to be made. That helps to prevent arrears from building up at the beginning of a claim. The agency is now placing even greater emphasis on ensuring that money flows between parents as quickly as possible.

The hon. Lady asks whether I will personally monitor the constituent's case that she has raised this evening in such detail. I undertake to do so, and I will draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

We should be realistic about enforcement. Some parents will fail to co-operate, fail to pay and fail to take the financial responsibility that they have for their own children. Indeed, worse than that, some people set out deliberately to evade their responsibilities. The lengths that some non-resident parents will go to are astounding: they change jobs—the hon. Lady suggested that that might have happened in the case that she raised—move house, become deliberately unemployed or even leave the country to avoid financially supporting their children.

Mrs. Brooke: Is the Minister aware that there is even a website advising parents on the various routes that they might take to avoid making any payment?

Jane Kennedy: I am aware of that website—the hon. Lady is right to draw it to the attention of the House—and it is to be deplored.

Of course, the agency's job would be easier if all parents accepted their responsibility and, ultimately, the children would benefit. The agency has reviewed its enforcement processes and implemented improvements, one of which has been an increase in the number of staff who work in specialist compliance and enforcement. A new director of enforcement post has also been created, recognising that a dedicated role is needed for work that is so vital to the agency's aims. Last year, the agency doubled the number of enforcement actions taken, and in the first six months of this year, it has doubled that figure again. I hope that the hon. Lady takes some comfort from that.

The agency uses a wide range of information sources to trace non-resident parents, including departmental records, the Inland Revenue, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, employers and accountants. The agency will also prosecute parents who fail to provide the information that they have been asked for. Between April and October 2004, 380 people were taken to court and convicted for failing to provide information to the agency.

If a parent with care does not believe that a calculation based on the information provided represents a true reflection of the non-resident parent's income or lifestyle, they can apply to the agency to have the calculation looked at again. That has been done in the case that the hon. Lady raised. If non-resident parents refuse to make arrangements to pay, either directly to the parent with care or through the agency, a number of options are available. Although the threat of a sanction often results in the payment of maintenance, the agency does not shy away from taking action if the threat does not result in that maintenance being paid.

For example, non-resident parents in employment may find that maintenance is deducted directly from their wages, and the self-employed may face action through the courts with liability orders. In cases where the non-resident parent persists in wilful non-compliance, the courts can take away driving licences or commit a person to prison. In the six months between April 2004 and October 2004, 108 people were taken to court and received a suspended committal sentence, which means that they must comply with the conditions stipulated by the court, usually to make regular payments or face a prison sentence.

I know that some of the hon. Lady's constituents are keen to move to the new scheme—she has written to that effect—but I cannot say when cases on the old scheme will be transferred to the new one. I am not in a position to say that today. We are keen that all parents who deal with the agency should be able to benefit from the reforms, but we believe very strongly that it would be irresponsible for us to move cases across to the new scheme before we are satisfied that the IT is able to cope and is working well. This is something that we have always maintained. Cases will be converted once the system is stabilised to our satisfaction and our business operation is robust.

As I said earlier, I apologise to those parents with care and non-resident parents who have not received the standard of service that they have the right to expect. I also know that the agency places great emphasis on ensuring that complaints are properly dealt with. Over the last year, it has improved the way in which it handles complaints, including accepting complaints by telephone, making the process quicker and easier for clients. However, the agency acknowledges that, for some cases, the service it provides is not of an acceptable standard. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that I and my colleagues are working very hard to raise the standard to make sure that the service delivered to the people that we seek to help is of the highest possible standard.

Mrs. Brooke: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Jane Kennedy: I was just about to sit down, but I will give way as we have a few minutes left.

Mrs. Brooke: I thank the Minister for her earlier assurance that she and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will monitor the case that I have outlined in great detail. Is it possible for her to put a time commitment on when we might expect feedback? She may well appreciate that, given the time that the case has been going on for, I am anxious to establish whether we might hear something in a month, two months, three months or whatever.

Jane Kennedy: I will look at the case in detail, and seven pages of its chronology have been provided as briefing for the debate. At this point it would clearly be wrong of me to give a commitment that I may fail to keep, but I will make sure that we get a response to the hon. Lady as quickly as is practicably possible.