---

Household Incomes

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average household income was for the poorest 10 per cent. of the population (a) in real terms and (b) as percentage increase in each year of the last 15 years. [16101]

Malcolm Wicks [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Such information as is available is in the table.

Money value of bottom decile median (£ per week)in December 2000 prices

Year	Before housing costs	After housing costs
	Family expenditure survey (FES)
1987	109	82
1988–89	107	79
1990–91	103	73
1991–92	104	70
1992–93	105	69
1993–94	110	74
1994–95	115	78
1995–96	117	77
	Family resources survey (FRS)
1994–95	112	67
1995–96	112	72
1996–97	115	74
1997–98	113	72
1998–99	116	79
1999–2000	118	79

Notes:

1. The derivation of year on year percentage change in income levels from the above data is not recommended due to the fact that sampling variation for any individual year is large in relation to year on year change.

2. All figures are estimates. There is evidence to suggest that the poorest 10 per cent. of the population as defined by their income may not be the poorest 10 per cent. in terms of living standards.

3. Data are not available for each year of the period requested—with the financial year 1999–2000 being the latest data available.

4. Results from the Family Resources Survey have been available only since 1994–95. Prior to that the Family Expenditure Survey was used as the data source for the Households Below Average Incomes (HBAI) series. Due to differences in the methodology employed in both the collection and analysis of data from both surveys, the figures presented above are not directly comparable across the two surveys.

5. FRS data are presented on a financial year basis. FES data for 1987 are presented on a single calendar year basis, that for 1988–89 to 1992–93 on a two-year combined calendar year basis and 1993–94 to 1995–96 on a two-year combined financial year basis where, for example, "1995–96" denotes the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97 combined. The coverage of the FRS is Great Britain only, as it excludes Northern Ireland, while that of the FES is the whole of the United Kingdom.

6. The monetary values presented are rounded to the nearest pound and are equivalised. That is to say that incomes are adjusted to take into account both the size and composition of the household to allow fair comparisons between different family types. The incomes presented above relate to the actual incomes of a couple with no children, which is used as the benchmark for equivalisation in HBAI.

7. As is standard HBAI convention, figures are presented on both a Before and After Housing Costs basis, in order to take into account variations in housing costs between households that do not necessarily reflect equivalent variations in the quality of housing.

ONE Pilot

Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had regarding the

13 Dec 2001 : Column: 994W

introduction of a uniform housing benefit and council tax benefit form for the Basic Model ONE Pilot; and if he will make a statement. [18000]

Malcolm Wicks: The option of having a uniform housing and council tax benefit (HB/CTB) claim form has been available to local authorities (LAs) participating in the ONE pilots. None of the Basic Model Pilot LAs has chosen to do so, but the North Nottinghamshire Private and Voluntary Sector Pilot has introduced such a form.

The introduction of the new Customer Management System, being rolled out from 2002, will mean that working age HB/CTB applicants who are also claiming a benefit administered through this Department, will see a uniform, single claims process.

New Deal for Disabled People

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what (a) record is kept and (b) assessment is made of the destinations of people who leave the new deal for disabled people for employment. [18054]

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The new deal for disabled people (NDDP) keeps records of the number of people moving into work. In the first three months operation of the NDDP extension, to the end of September, 492 people have found employment. An assessment of the destinations of people who leave the programme will be made through evaluation of the programme.

Child Support Agency

Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints about the work of the Child Support Agency have been made to the agency by hon. Members on behalf of constituents, in each of the past five years. [18175]

Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Norman Lamb, dated 12 December 2001:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, promised a substantive reply from me.

You asked how many complaints about the work of the Child Support Agency have been made in each of the last five years by honourable Members on behalf of their constituents.

Unfortunately we have only counted this since July 2000. Since that date until 30th September 2001 we received 6,640 complaints from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents.

I hope this is helpful.

Working Age Agency

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of work undertaken on the development of a new working age agency. [19006]

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Departments of Social Security and for Education and Employment absorbed all development costs in 2000–01.

Our plans for introducing Jobcentre Plus are still developing. For this reason the information requested on costs for 2001–02 is not yet available.

13 Dec 2001 : Column: 995W

Welfare to Work

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the capital budget welfare to work figure for 1998–99 that was not specified in Table 11 on page 102 of the 2001 departmental report. [18906]

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The capital budget welfare to work figure for the 1998–99 financial year that was not specified in Table 11 on page 102 of the 2001 departmental report was £27,000.

Benefits Agency/Employment Service (Merger)

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the expected saving from the proposed merger of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. [18978]

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 28 June 2001, Official Report, column 160W.

Departmental Report

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the costs and functions of the Model Office referred to on page 70 of the 2001 departmental report. [19122]

Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 12 December 2001:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.

You asked for a statement on the costs and functions of the Model Office referred to on page 70 of the 2001 Departmental Report.

Since the Model Office was established and up to the end of October 2001 the running costs have been just over £700,000.

The main role of the Model Office is to support the introduction of the Child Support Reforms. Its functions include: the final testing from a user perspective of the new computer system, assessment of new and existing business processes, testing training material, examining organisational design and associated business products (i.e. procedures, customer materials).

I hope this is helpful.

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the costs and functions of the process learning centres referred to on page 70 of the 2001 departmental report. [19123]

Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 12 December 2001:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.

13 Dec 2001 : Column: 996W

You asked for a statement on the costs and functions of the process learning centres referred to on page 70 of the 2001 Departmental Report.

Two Process Learning Centres were put into operation. The cost was £1.2 million. Their aims were to:

Assist the design of the business process flowing from Child Support Reform and thereby inform the design of the new computer system required to support the reforms.

Permit us to evaluate the business changes to help us plan for national implementation.

Identify opportunities to implement some business improvements in advance of the legislative changes.

Demonstrate the new delivery model to key stakeholders.

I hope this is helpful.

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a list of the sums which are not included in the 2001 Departmental report and are indicated by the symbol. [19419]

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The information has been placed in the Library.

---