| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jobcentre Plus/Pension Service
Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff will be employed in (a) Jobcentre Plus and (b) the Pension Service whose primary responsibility is face-to-face contact with the public (i) this year and (ii) in each future year for which projections have been made. [71784]
Mr. McCartney [holding answer 22 July 2002]: Staffing in Jobcentre Plus is not broken down by this categorisation. On current assumptions, the local service for The Pension Service that we are starting to establish from October 2002 will require around 2,400 staff, once full national rollout is achieved.
Child Support
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the latest anticipated date is by which the computer system to support delivery of the new child support scheme will be completed and fully
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1546W
tested; and what the latest anticipated dates are for (a) new clients and (b) existing clients to be assessed under the new scheme; [72774]
- (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in introducing the new child support scheme. [72775]
Malcolm Wicks: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State (Mr. Darling) 20 March 2002, Official Report, columns 315–324.
Testing of the new IT system continues, but no firm date for completion of those tests has yet been agreed. Accordingly, no date for the commencement of the new scheme, either for new or existing clients has been set.
Mr. Luke: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the arrangements for the new child support scheme will come into effect. [73637]
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: The then Secretary of State's Statement to the House on 20 March 2002 made clear that this Government is not willing to take the risk of introducing the new child support scheme until we are confident that it will work properly.
Testing of the new IT system continues, but no firm date for completion of those tests has yet been agreed. Accordingly, no date for the commencement of the new scheme has been set.
Child Support Agency
Mr. Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will investigate the level of accuracy of Child Support Agency assessments. [69742]
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. Roy dated 23 July 2002:
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
You ask if the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will investigate the level of accuracy of Child Support Agency assessments.
The Agency makes great efforts to ensure the accuracy of child maintenance assessments. These include;
—requesting verification of all income declared by clients before the maintenance is calculated;
—training and coaching at all stages of a maintenance application through workshops and weekly meetings to establish common understanding and best practices;
—establishing checking teams to assess the accuracy of work being processed;
—checking the cash value accuracy of a percentage of assessments by a centrally based team, the Monitoring and Guidance Unit.
All this has contributed to the achievement in the last year of accuracy, to the nearest penny, on the last action taken on a case of 82.5 per cent. against a target of 78 per cent.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost has been to his Department of the child support reforms new rules implementation computer system; what delivery date was specified in the contract for this system; what (a) financial penalties to the
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1547W
contractor and (b) costs to his Department accrue as a consequence of the late delivery of this computer system; and if he will make a statement. [71557]
Malcolm Wicks [holding answer 19 July 2002]: 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. Oaten dated 23 July 2002:
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
You ask what the cost has been to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Department of the Child Support Reforms New Rules Implementation computer system; what delivery date was specified in the contract for this system; what (a) financial penalties to the contractor and (b) costs to his Department accrue as a consequence of the late delivery of this computer system; and if he will make a statement.
I am sorry that I cannot provide the costs of the new IT for the Child Support Agency as it is commercially confidential. I can say that the planned total cost of the project to implement Child Support Reform over the 10 year period of the business case was £651 million.
The planned delivery date for the new system that was specified in the contract was in line with the timetable for the implementation of the Child Support Reforms in April this year.
With regard to the financial penalties to the contractor, we will take stock of the position when testing is complete and we are able to recommend to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions a revised commencement date for the next phase of Child Support Reforms.
The cost of the delay to the implementation of the new child support scheme is highly dependent on the completion of testing to the new computer system. Until that testing is complete and a date for the new scheme announced, the total cost cannot be accurately stated.
Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) in how many cases a reduced benefit was given under section 46(5) of the Child Support Act 1991 in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02; [67235]
- (2) in how many cases the Secretary of State decided that a parent with care withdrew an application for maintenance after claiming good cause for not co-operating with the Child Support Agency in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02; [67236]
(3) in how many cases the Secretary of State considered whether a parent with care was required to co-operate with the Child Support Agency in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02; [67238]
(4) in how many cases the Secretary of State decided a parent with care (a) had and (b) had not good cause for not co-operating with the Child Support Agency in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02; [67239]
(5) how many maintenance application forms were (a) issued and (b) received by the Child Support Agency in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02. [67240]
Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith.
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1548W
Letter from Doug Smith to Ms Baird, dated 24 July 2002:
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
You have asked five questions:
1. "In how many cases a reduced benefit was given under section 46 of the Child Support Act 1991 in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02";
We do not hold this information for years prior to 1997. For subsequent years the information you require is:
Year to 31st March:
1998 74,280
1999 49,688
2000 26,352
2001 13,422
2002 8,169
Following the introduction in April 1998 of face-to-face interviews with parents with care claiming benefits, there has been a sharp rise in compliance and a corresponding fall in the number of reduced benefit directions issued. These interviews provide the opportunity to explain to parents with care the advantages of co-operating with the Agency as well as the good cause rules.
2. "How many maintenance application forms were (a) issued and (b) received by the Child Support Agency in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02".
We do not hold this information for years prior to 1997 and do not record the number of application forms issued. The following information represents the number of application forms received by the Agency in each year:
Year to 31st March:
1998 436,376
1999 400,747
2000 369,226
2001 303,797
2002 365,414
3. "In how many cases the Secretary of State decided a parent with care (a) had and (b) had not "good cause" for not co-operating with the Child Support Agency in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02";
We do not hold the information for years prior to 1997. For subsequent years the information you require is:
| Year to 31st March: | Had good cause | Did not have good cause |
| 1998 | 30,952 | 108,193 |
| 1999 | 28,591 | 75,808 |
| 2000 | 25,234 | 38,049 |
| 2001 | 32,465 | 19,209 |
| 2002 | 17,511 | 11,271 |
4. "In how many cases the Secretary of State considered whether a parent with care was required to co-operate with the Child Support Agency in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02";
The number of cases considered is the total of the figures given in my previous answer:
Year to 31st March:
1998 139,145
1999 104,399
2000 63,283
2001 51,674
2002 28,782
5. "In how many cases the Secretary of State decided that a parent with care withdrew an application for maintenance after claiming 'good cause' for not co-operating with the Child Support Agency in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02";
I regret that this information is not available.
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1549W
I am sorry not to be provide all the information requested but hope that what is available is helpful to you.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |