| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Child Support Disregard
Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in the 1996-97 financial year of providing a child support disregard of (a) £5 per week, (b) £10 per week and (c) £15 per week; and what are the assumptions upon which these three costings are based. [23331]
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: It is estimated that the cost of introducing a £5 maintenance disregard in 1996-97 would be around £50 million; the cost of a £10 disregard would be around £90 million; and the cost of a £15 disregard would be around £120 million. The annual cost of a disregard is likely to double over time as the Child Support Agency caseload increases.
These estimates apply the disregard to child support maintenance and other forms of child maintenance, and assume that the disregard would apply to lone parents and parents with care who have entered into a new partnership. Other assumptions include the number of full child support assessments where the parent with care receives income support, and rates of compliance by absent parents.
17 Apr 1996 : Column: 534
Mr. Redmond:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what out-sourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement; [23733]
Mr. Andrew Mitchell:
The contract to outsource the Department's data centre services was awarded to EDS Ltd. on 1 June 1995 and is for a period of 10 years. The contract is volume/output based with a value depending on future levels of business.
Current estimates are that charges will be in the region of £600 million over the 10-year period.
Other details relating to the terms and conditions of this contract, and the Child Support Agency's contract with EDS, are commercial in confidence.
Mr. Hinchliffe:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long a claimant of attendance allowance going abroad outside the European Union (a) may receive attendance allowance payments and (b) is entitled to resume attendance allowance payments; and if these entitlements are available to disability living allowance recipients. [24062]
Mr. Andrew Mitchell:
A recipient of attendance allowance or disability living allowance going abroad, outside the European Union, may continue to receive that benefit provided that the conditions of entitlement continue to be met and their right to reside in Great Britain is not subject to any limitation or condition, for:
On return to this country, people who meet the above conditions while abroad will continue to receive attendance allowance or disability living allowance, providing they continue to satisfy the conditions of entitlement and have no limitation placed on their right to reside in Great Britain. People who do not satisfy the above conditions whilst abroad may reclaim attendance allowance or disability living allowance on return to this country and requalify in the normal way.
17 Apr 1996 : Column: 535
Mr. Hinchliffe:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is issued to social fund adjudicating officers in cases where an application is made prior to establishing a fair rent on the applicant's tenancy. [24128]
Mr. Roger Evans:
The Secretary of State's directions 12(o), 23(f) and 29(d) exclude a payment of a budgeting loan, crisis loan or community care grant respectively to meet housing costs, including rent. There is an exception to this rule for both budgeting loans and crisis loans for rent in advance where the landlord is not a local authority. Other exceptions which apply to these loans are charges for board and lodging accommodation and residential charges for hostels, other than for deposits. In the case of budgeting loans this is where such charges are payable in advance to secure accommodation. There is no guidance on the rent exclusion, since the directions are self explanatory. The Secretary of State's directions and guidance to social fund officers are contained in the social fund guide, a copy of which is held in the Library.
With the exceptions referred to above, the reason for excluding help with rent from the social fund is to avoid duplication of help from the housing benefit scheme. There are procedures in place to ensure that both local authorities and rent officers make timeous determinations of claims and that payment on account is made where a delay is not due to the claimant failing to supply all the necessary information.
Mr. Byers:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24861]
Mr. Burt:
There are 20 live master files in this Department marked "Not to be seen by National Audit Office (NAO) without reference to the appropriate Head of Division", sometimes abbreviated to "Not for NAO eyes". Each file usually relates to a specific NAO study and may run into number of volumes, covering the course of the study from feasibility work to the production of a Treasury minute. Each study could involve a number of divisions in different locations, who may hold duplicates of all or part of the master file, as necessary.
The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.
Mr. Tipping:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to receive the report from the Industrial Injuries advisory committee on chronic bronchitis and emphysema; and if he will make a statement. [25180]
Mr. Clapham:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the main recommendations of the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council review
17 Apr 1996 : Column: 536
of the criterion used to diagnose chronic bronchitis and emphysema in coal mines; and when the report will be published. [24818]
Mr. Roger Evans:
We have now received a copy of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council report and are considering it carefully. The report will be published within the next few weeks.
Dr. Godman:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list (a) the number of appeals against clawback decisions taken by the compensation recovery unit, (b) the number and percentage of which were successful and (c) the average amount repaid to successful appellants in each quarter of the last five years. [24002]
Mr. Roger Evans:
This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Ursula Brennan to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 16 April 1996:
17 Apr 1996 : Column: 537
unobtainable; how many were successfully answered; and what percentage of the total number of incoming calls were ineffective. [24645]
Mr. Andrew Mitchell:
The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.
(2) if he will set out the terms of the contract the Child Support Agency has with the EDS computer system; and if he will make a statement. [23539]
(a) up to 26 weeks if the absence, when it began, is for a temporary purpose and does not last for a continuous period exceeding 26 weeks; or
Special arrangements exist for people who are abroad as serving members of Her Majesty's forces and their families and for certain airmen, mariners and continental shelf workers.
(b) as long as the absence is
(i) temporary and
(ii) for the specific purpose of being treated for incapacity, or a disabling condition, which begins before they leave Great Britain, and
(iii) the Secretary of State certifies that it is consistent with the proper administration of the Act that he should be treated as though he were present in Great Britain.
Ms Lynne:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many incoming telephone calls were made to the Child Support Agency client helpline; how many received ring tone no reply, number busy or number
As Peter Mathison is away from the office on annual leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list (a) the number of appeals against clawback decisions taken by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU), (b) the number and percentage of which were successful and (c) the average amount repaid to successful appellants in each quarter of the last five years.
Since the introduction of the scheme in 1990 to the 31 March 1996, 825 appeals against clawback decisions were received by the CRU. 682 have been processed so far, out of which 374 (54.8%) were successful. Of those which were successful, the CRU reviewed the decision without reference to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) in 318 cases and in the remainder of the cases the appeal was allowed/partially allowed by the ITS.
The average amounts repaid to successful appellants in each quarter of the last five years are given in the annex attached.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
Quarterly period Average amount repaid £
1 April 1991 to 30 June 1991 5.81
1 July 1991 to 30 September 1991 675.54
1 October 1991 to 31 December 1991 91.76
1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992 2,972.98
1 April 1992 to 30 June 1992 3,015.68
1 July 1992 to 30 September 1992 1,584.84
1 October 1992 to 31 December 1992 2,199.72
1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993 1,519,10
1 April 1993 to 30 June 1993 2,014,29
1 July 1993 to 30 September 1993 5,948,50
1 October 1993 to 31 December 1993 3,003.87
1 January 1994 to 31 March 1994 2,350.49
1 April 1994 to 30 June 1994 4,610.49
1 July 1994 to 30 September 1994 2,894.40
1 October 1994 to 31 December 1994 2,712,33
1 January 1995 to 31 March 1995 5,447.71
1 April 1995 to 30 June 1995 3,238.33
1 July 1995 to 30 September 1995 5,590.87
1 October 1995 to 31 December 1995 6,032.08
1 January 1996 to 31 March 1996 4,545.16
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |