---

13 Feb 2003 : Column 950W—continued

Benefit Claimants

Sir Archy Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how his Department will treat benefit claimants who fail to respond to requests to inform the Department what method of payment they have chosen. [92625]

Mr. Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on how his Department will treat those benefit claimants who fail to respond to requests to inform the Department about the method of payment they have chosen. [93585]

Malcolm Wicks: The Department is contacting customers and providing them with information (including letters and leaflets), which clearly sets out the account options as part of the move to Direct Payment. Customers will then be able to consider the options available and choose the account that best meets their needs and circumstances. They will be asked to provide

13 Feb 2003 : Column 951W

details of their chosen account so that the Department can begin to pay their benefit or pensions by Direct Payment.

Over the next two years orderbooks will be phased out and Direct Payment will become the normal method of paying benefits and pensions from April 2003. From 2005 orderbooks will no longer be an option and customers will have to be paid by an alternative method.

It has always been recognised that there will be some customers who are unwilling or unable to use any of the banking options or the Post Office card account. For

13 Feb 2003 : Column 952W

these people we are currently exploring the options available to ensure they receive their benefit at outlets which will include the Post Office.

Benefit/Pensions

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate, for each major benefit and pension, how much of the expenditure of his Department is received by each decile within the UK income distribution; and if he will make a statement. [97355]

Mr. McCartney: Such information as is available is presented for Great Britain in the table.

Proportion of expenditure on major benefits by equivalised income decile (Great Britain)Percentage

Benefits/decile	First	Second	Third	Fourth	Fifth	Sixth	Seventh	Eighth	Ninth	Tenth
Before housing costs
Retirement pension and/or MIG	10	14	15	15	12	10	8	6	6	5
Income support	17	32	23	13	7	4	4	1	1	0
Housing benefit	11	23	25	19	9	5	5	2	1	0
Council tax benefit	20	24	21	15	8	5	4	2	1	0
Jobseeker's allowance	38	29	11	8	3	5	3	1	0	0
Disability living allowance	5	6	13	18	17	14	11	8	4	3
Attendance allowance	2	8	13	18	17	16	16	6	3	2
Incapacity benefits	11	15	17	18	13	9	7	5	3	2
Child benefit	11	14	12	11	11	10	9	8	7	7
After housing costs
Retirement pension and/or MIG	5	13	17	13	12	10	10	7	7	6
Income support	21	38	18	9	5	5	2	1	0	0
Housing benefit	24	33	21	8	6	4	3	1	0	0
Council tax benefit	22	30	21	9	6	5	4	2	1	0
Jobseeker's allowance	52	19	8	7	5	4	2	2	1	0
Disability living allowance	4	5	13	19	16	13	10	10	6	4
Attendance allowance	2	4	12	16	18	15	20	7	4	3
Incapacity benefits	10	16	16	16	13	9	8	6	4	2
Child benefit	12	15	12	12	11	10	9	7	7	6

Notes:

1. The estimates presented show expenditure by equivalised income deciles based on 'Households Below Average Income' (HBAI) for the financial year 2000–01. The series is derived from the Family Resources Survey which does not include Northern Ireland. The latest year for which data are available is 2000–01.

2. The estimates are presented both for income Before Housing Costs (BHC) and for income After Housing Costs (AHC), in line with HBAI conventions. Households are assigned to income deciles according to their income including all benefits.

3. All results are estimates, and may be affected by sampling error, reporting error and any differences between groups in their willingness to respond to the Family Resources Survey. Results are presented as percentages; estimates of total expenditure, by benefit, from this survey may not match actual expenditure.

4. Housing and community charge/council tax benefit figures are total amounts paid to beneficiaries, irrespective of the source of funding. Therefore the figures include benefit spending reimbursed by DWP, spending on rent rebates financed within local authorities' Housing Revenue Accounts, benefit spending financed from local authorities' general funds, and benefit spending within the National Asylum Support Service budget.

5. Retirement pension and MIG are shown together as the latter may be misreported as the former, in the Family Resources Survey.

6. In accordance with HBAI methodology, no allowance has been made for any extra costs facing disabled people, when assigning their households to an income decile.

Child Benefit

Sir Archy Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the proportion of child benefit decisions that were correct in the last five years; when he started setting targets on child benefit accuracy; and what the targets are. [92626]

Malcolm Wicks: Performance targets for benefit delivery and accuracy have been set for many years. The current Child Benefit Centre business plan includes an accuracy target of 98 per cent. for new claims.

Payment accuracy figures for child benefit show a consistently high level of achievement by Child Benefit Centre.

Year	Payment accuracy(30)
1997–98(28)	99
1998–99(28)	100
1999–2000(29)	98
2000–01(29)	98
2001–02(29)	99

⁽²⁸⁾ Figures for 1997–99 reflect the finding of the Chief Adjudicator Officer, who was responsible for reporting on standards of decision making in the Department. Following introduction of new Decision-Making and Appeals (DMA) legislation in 1999, the function of the Chief Adjudication Officer ceased.

⁽²⁹⁾ Child Benefit Centre findings.

⁽³⁰⁾ Payment accuracy refers to the payment of the correct amount of benefit to the correct person.

In addition, under DMA legislation, the Secretary of State now has a legal obligation to report on the standards of decision making in the Department for Work and Pensions. The Secretary of State's first DMA report was for the year 2000–01. He reported that 57 per cent. of child benefit decisions were correct. For child benefit, this report was concerned only with the decision making process, not with the outcome—accuracy of payment. It is quite possible for there to have been a technical error in the process but for the payment to be entirely correct. This applies with particular regard to evidence, in particular the retention of original documents required by the monitors when checking decisions made on review.

Decisions resulting from such reviews were classed as errors regardless of whether the award itself is correct. Figures for 2001–02 have not yet been reported but indications are that around 77 per cent. of decisions were correct, again reflecting a DMA monitoring specification that concentrated on the process and not on the outcome—payment accuracy. For 2002–03, the DMA monitoring specification closely aligns the process and payment accuracy to give a more realistic indication of decision-making standards. Emerging findings indicate an accuracy level of 99.6 per cent. for 2002–03.

13 Feb 2003 : Column 953W

Child Support

Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which areas are piloting the child support reforms IT system; and of those areas, which are testing cases calculated using the (a) existing rules and (b) new rules. [91294]

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. Steven Webb, dated February 2003:

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 ask which areas are piloting the child support reforms IT system; and of those areas which are testing cases calculated using the (a) existing rules and (b) new rules.
All offices which process child maintenance applications now have access to the new IT system. It is being used to process a small proportion of cases on the basis of existing rules. No offices are directly involved in testing the application of the new rules.

Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many driving licences have been removed from non-resident parents for failure to pay child support to parents with care since this measure was introduced; and what the date was in each case. [94430]

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. Andrew Selous, dated February 2003:

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 the Chief Executive.

13 Feb 2003 : Column 954W

You ask how many driving licences have been removed from non-resident parents for failure to pay child support to parents with care since this measure was introduced; and what the date was in each case.
There have been 2 non-resident parents who have been disqualified from driving for failure to pay child support. The intention of the relevant legislation is however to use the existence of this power to encourage more parents to meet this responsibility with out a court appearance. I believe that it is having this beneficial effect.

---