|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what new data series separated by (a) gender, (b) race, (c) disability and (d) age have been commissioned by his Department since August 1997. 
Mr. McCartney: The table shows the information requested for series produced by this Department and published since August 1997 which are split by gender, race, disability or age. Where a series is marked as "ad hoc", the required split is not routinely published but can be provided in response to a specific request.
|Figures split by|
|Child benefit quarterly statistics(3)||Ad hoc||No||No||Yes|
|Client group analysis of the population over state pension age (six-monthly)||Yes||No||Yes||Yes|
|Client group analysis: Quarterly bulletin on families with children on key benefits||Ad hoc||No||Yes||Yes|
|Client group analysis: Quarterly bulletin on the population of working age on key benefits||Yes||No||Yes||Yes|
|Contributions and qualifying years for retirement pension (annual)||Yes||No||No||Yes|
|Disability, care and mobility benefitsQuarterly statistical enquiry(4)||Yes||No||Yes||Yes|
|Employment zones (six monthly)||Yes||Yes||Ad hoc||Yes|
|Households below average income (annual)||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Income related benefits estimates of take-up||Yes||No||No||No|
|Individual incomes series (annual)(5)||Yes||Ad hoc||Ad hoc||Yes|
|Annual local area labour force survey||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|New Deal for Lone Parents (quarterly)||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|New Deal for Young People and Long-term Unemployed People aged 25+ (quarterly)||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Pensioners' incomes series||Yes||Ad hoc||Yes||Yes|
|Quarterly appeal tribunal statistics||No||No||Yes||No|
|Second tier pension provision (annual)||Yes||No||No||Yes|
|Statistical summary (quarterly)(6)||Yes||No||Partly||Yes|
|Work based learning for adults||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Other data series|
|Disability survey (follow up to FRS(7))||No||No||Yes||No|
|The family and children survey (FACS)(8)||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|New Deal for 50 plus||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|New Deal for Disabled People||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
(3) Method of collecting data changed in 1998 to provide significantly more in depth analysis.
(4) Invalid care allowance figures were first published after August 1997 and can be split by age and gender only. Disability living allowance/ attendance allowance figures can also be split by disability but were published prior to August 1997.
(5) Race/disabilitysample size are generally too small unless 4+ years data used.
(6) The statistical summary provides a summary of key DWP national statistics, some give an indication of the level of disability of the customer.
(7) FRS means "Family Resources Survey".
(8) The survey collects information on gender, ethnicity, disability and age, although it should be noted that respondents are primarily women between the ages of 18 and 50.
8 May 2002 : Column 205W
Malcolm Wicks: This Department has a wide range of policies that support work life balance and, in particular, assist those staff with child care responsibilities. It actively supports and encourages the provision of child care for staff throughout the organisation. The provision is mainly in the form of subsidised child care places in nurseries and holiday playschemes.
Currently, this Department and its businesses sponsor 768 places in nurseries, 19 of which are on-site nurseries. This Department also sponsors 1,972 places in holiday playschemes, many of which have been newly set up in partnership with other organisations and with start-up funding. In addition, some staff receive a direct subsidy where childminding is the preferred type of child care.
Financial accountability is mainly at local business unit level and so details of the overall costs incurred in providing assistance with child care is not available centrally. Investment in each child care facility is based on a business case which must demonstrate business viability and value for money, as well as providing parents with the type of child care which is most suitable for them.
8 May 2002 : Column 206W
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his most recent annual estimate is of the accrued amount of benefits overpaid due to (a) customer error, (b) official error and (c) fraud if the cases where there was (i) high and (ii) low suspicion of fraud were well founded. 
Malcolm Wicks: Our most recent estimate is that the total amount of benefits overpaid due to customer error and official error taken together is around £1 billion and the total amount due to fraud is around £2 billion. These are broad order estimates. They are made up of estimates from the continuously measured benefits (income support and jobseeker's allowance), from National Benefit Reviews and from estimated levels of loss in the unmeasured benefits.
Estimates of high and low suspicion fraud have been provided for most of the benefits reviewed. The Department has, however, tightened its approach to recording such cases since the earlier reviews of the 1990s and now makes much greater effort to resolve cases either way.
Further information on the handling of suspicion of fraud in the benefit review process is in The Results of the Area Benefit Review and the Quality Support Team from April 2000 to March 2001, Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance, a copy of which is in the Library.
8 May 2002 : Column 207W
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases there were and what the value of cases was where his Department had deemed that there was (a) high and (b) low suspicion that an overpayment in (i) housing benefit, (ii) jobseeker's allowance and (iii) income support was made due to fraud, but where that suspicion was eventually cleared altogether, in the years (A) 199899, (B) 19992000 and (C) 200001. 
We do not have complete information on the number of cases in the Area Benefit Review process which were initially thought to be suspicious between 1998 and 2001. However, analysis of the data we hold from this period provides information on the proportions of high suspicion cases resulting in different outcomes. The analysis indicates that 42 per cent. of those initially deemed 'high suspicion' and subjected to a full further investigation, were found not to require or merit a change to benefit in payment. The corresponding proportion by monetary value is 49 per cent. A further 26 per cent. (21 per cent. by value) were found to be fraudulent. In the remaining 32 per cent. of cases (30 per cent. by value) it was not possible to prove that fraud had occurred, but a strong suspicion remained. It is this final category which is reported as high suspicion in the National Statistics reports "The Results of the Area Benefit Review and the Quality Support Team, Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance".
Low suspicion cases are not subjected to further investigation and are not, therefore, liable to be re-categorised. Since October 2001, in order to streamline data collection processes, the Department no longer records low suspicion as the information is of limited value.
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost in 200102 was of the pay increase to staff in his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 200203. 
Mr. McCartney: In 200102 staff within the former Department of Social Security received an overall pay increase of 5.5 per cent., effective from 1 July 2001 and costing some £48.8 million. Recyclable paybill savings of 1.5 per cent. were used to partially fund the pay increase.
Staff within the former Employment Services Agency received an overall pay increase of 5.5 per cent., effective from 1 July 2002 and costing some £13.4 million. Recyclable paybill savings of 0.7 per cent. were used to partially fund the pay increase.
In 200203 there will be a single pay settlement for staff within the Department for Work and Pensions, effective from 1 July 2002. This is subject to negotiation with the trade unions side and details of the settlement are not yet available.
8 May 2002 : Column 208W
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|