---

Pensions

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are being undertaken to establish the means by which pensioners prefer to have their pensions paid. [129452]

Mr. Rooker: Pensioners are routinely asked to specify which method of payment they prefer when making a claim to Retirement Pension from the choices of Post Office or ACT into a bank or building society.

Currently over 50 per cent. of new pensioners are choosing to have their pension paid into a bank or building society account.

11 Jul 2000 : Column: 486W

Incapacity Benefit

Mr. Russell Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants over the last five years in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Scotland and (c) South West Scotland District have had their Incapacity Benefit withdrawn after an all work test carried out by the Benefits Agency Medical Services; how many of these claimants requested a review; how many went to appeal; and how many of these (i) reviews and (ii) appeals resulted in benefit being re-instated. [129498]

Mr. Bayley: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

Entitlement to Incapacity Benefit requires the claimant to provide evidence of incapacity. An initial award of benefit is made if there is acceptable medical evidence to support the claim. Subsequently, incapacity is assessed under the relevant medical test: during the first 28 weeks of incapacity, where the claimant has a recent work record, this is the own occupation test; after 28 weeks, or from the start of the claim where the claimant has not recently worked, it is the All Work Test (AWT) which was replaced from 3 April 2000 by the Personal Capability Assessment. If the relevant test is not satisfied, benefit is disallowed from that point. Incapacity is reassessed from time to time to check continuing entitlement.

Information on disallowances following the All Work Test is in table 1 (Great Britain) and table 2 (Scotland). The national data on benefit disallowances shown in table 1 are derived from a different source, and are collected over a different period from the available data for Scotland in table 2. The two tables are therefore not directly comparable. Disallowances include claimants who have failed to return the All Work Test questionnaire or attend for medical examination.

Data on appeals are in table 3. The time lag between disallowance, lodging and hearing an appeal means there is no direct relationship between decisions to disallow benefit and appeals made and heard in each year.

There has never been a requirement in Incapacity Benefit for a person who is dissatisfied with their decision to apply for a review. Since September 1999 a claimant may ask for an unfavourable decision to be reconsidered and revised within a one month time limit.

Table 1.

Great Britain	Total AWT disallowances
1995(16)	54,080
1996	189,571
1997	208,545
1998	219,007
1999	196,928

(16) From the introduction of Incapacity Benefit (IB) on 13 April 1995

Note:

Includes credits only disallowances

Source:

These figures for All Work Test disallowances are taken from a 100 per cent. count of adjudication decisions from the benefit computer system. Multiple decisions are given where increases for dependants are also claimed

11 Jul 2000 : Column: 487W

Table 2.

	1997-98	1998-99	1999-2000
Scotland
Total AWT disallowances	30,700	26,020	20,760
	South West Scotland District
Total AWT disallowances	2,840	2,820	2,380

Notes:

1. The year is taken from 1 March to 28(9) February in each year. Data on disallowances are not available from this source for the period 13 April 1995 (the introduction data of IB) up to and including 31 August 1996. Because of changes to the recording system, terminations due to the All Work Test are unreliable for November 1998.

2. The Government Office Region figures from February 2000, are derived using the claimant's postcode. Prior to this date the GOR figures were derived using the local office serial number.

3. Includes credits only disallowances.

Source:

Five per cent. scan of the benefit computer system of benefit spells ending and will exclude some clerically held cases. Figures are not directly comparable to those in Table 1.

Table 3.

All Work Test appeals	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999
Great Britain
Number cleared at hearing	3,038	38,473	51,153	62,603	57,151
Found in favour of the appellant	1,471	18,024	22,162	25,175	23,646
Percentage found in favour	48.4	46.8	43.3	40.2	41.4
Scotland
Number cleared at hearing	1,173	7,313	7,897	9,696	11,321
Found in favour of the appellant	598	3,273	3,837	4,555	5,729
Percentage found in favour	51.0	44.8	48.6	47.0	50.6

Notes:

1. Appeals data are in calendar years. Figures for 1999 are up to and including September 1999.

2. There is no breakdown of South West Scotland available.

3. Figures are based on cases at the Glasgow office of The Appeals Service, which covers all Scotland.

Sources:

1. For figures prior to Autumn 1997, 100 per cent. extract from ITS computerised records.

2. For figures after Autumn 1997, 100 per cent. download from the Appeals Service GAPS computer system.

Child Support Agency

Mr. Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-resident parents who have not co-operated with the Child Support Agency have (a) been processed through Child Support Agency enforcement procedures, (b) been made to pay maintenance, (c) had arrest warrants issued against them and (d) been imprisoned. [129249]

Angela Eagle: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write my the hon. Friend.

Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 10 July 2000:

I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about enforcement action taken by the Child Support Agency. Mrs. Boardman is unavailable and therefore I am writing to you on her behalf.

The information that I have provided is applicable to England and Wales. Different arrangements apply to Scotland though the underlying principles are similar. The Government believes that

11 Jul 2000 : Column: 488W

non-resident parents should pay maintenance for their children if they can afford to do so and we will continue to pursue non-resident parents who persistently seek to avoid their responsibilities.

The Agency's policy is that, if necessary, it will use the powers given to it by Parliament to enforce payment of child maintenance. Where normal collection arrangements fail and arrears of child maintenance build up, the Agency will initiate enforcement action if the non-resident parent does not make an acceptable offer to pay. However, each case is considered on its merits and the Agency will take account of the likely effect of enforcement action on the welfare of any children involved.

The full range of powers available will be considered. Where an uncooperative non-resident parent is employed a deduction from earnings order can be imposed. This is an effective, value for money method of collecting maintenance and arrears without resorting to the court system. It is a criminal offence for an employer to fail to act on a deduction from earnings order. Where an employer does fail to act they may be prosecuted. During 1999-2000 the Agency prosecuted 5 such cases.

Where a deduction from earnings order cannot be issued, e.g. the non-resident parent is self-employed, and no agreement can be reached to pay maintenance, a Liability Order is made. This means the debt is registered with the Magistrates Court and a County Court Judgement will then be considered making it difficult for a non-resident parent to obtain credit, mortgage, loans etc. During 1999-2000 Liability Orders were granted on 2,169 cases and County Court Judgements sought on 563 cases.

By taking this action it is hoped that the non-resident parent will start to cooperate, however, if this proves ineffective, Bailiff action is taken to seize goods to the value of the debt or, alternatively, a Garnishee or Charging order is imposed. A Garnishee Order freezes the non-resident parent's bank account. A Charging order freezes the non-resident parent's property that could be sold, for example, a car or house that may be up for sale at the time of the order. During 1999-2000 the Agency applied for 130 Garnishee Orders, 69 Charging Orders and took Bailiff action on 1,916 cases.

The final sanction is committal to prison, although this does not discharge the debt. During 1999-2000 a total of 22 applications for committal to prison were made. Of these 18 were successful, 11 of which were suspended sentences.

By making positive telephone or face to face contact with a non-resident parent early on in the assessment process the Agency aims to obtain full compliance and reduce the number of parents who refuse to cooperate. Non-resident parents are encouraged to make regular payments, preferably by direct debt, standing order or a deduction from earnings order.

The Government believes that child maintenance should not be seen as an optional expense to be paid or not as personal circumstances dictate. New legislation, which will support the Child Support Reforms means that maintenance assessments will be simpler to calculate and easier for both parents to understand. This should encourage more parents to co-operate. It will allow the Agency to use more of its resources to deal with those parents who refuse to pay their assessed liability. Additional penalties such as the removal of driving licences are also being considered, though the Agency's aim will remain to ensure the proper flow of maintenance without the use of penalties.

I hope this is helpful.

---