---

14 Jul 2004 : Column 1201W—continued

WORK AND PENSIONS

Access to Work Scheme

Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to (a) increase the budget for the Access to Work Scheme and (b) advertise all elements of the scheme. [182600]

Maria Eagle: The Access to Work programme is open to disabled people already in employment (including self-employment), people changing jobs and unemployed people about to start work. It helps towards the additional employment costs resulting from disability, for example help with the costs of travelling to work, adaptations to premises and special equipment.
 
14 Jul 2004 : Column 1202W
 

Spending on the programme, together with the number of people helped has trebled since 1997. While we have no current plans to increase the budget further, funding will continue to be kept under review.

Jobcentre Plus invests around £300,000 per year on marketing and publicising its specialised services and programmes for disabled people. Promotional material is available in a wide range of media such as leaflets, audiotapes, videos and on the Jobcentre Plus website; new leaflets about Access to Work for use at conferences and exhibitions and information are available.

Individuals and employers can access more detailed information through Jobcentre Plus Disability Employment Advisers and Access to Work Advisers.

Benefit Payments

Linda Perham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many (a) people and (b) people aged over 50 years who made a new claim for incapacity benefit or income support with disability premium were (i) still claiming the benefit, (ii) claiming another benefit and (iii) in employment six months later in the latest period for which figures are available. [181113]

Maria Eagle: The available information is in the table.
People making a new claim to incapacity benefit (IB) or awarded income support with a disability premium (ISDP),March 2002 to February 2003 Thousand

	Status of claim six months after commencement
	All commencements	All still receiving IB /ISDP	All receiving another benefit	All leaving benefit
All ages	907.3	623.1	72.0	212.2
Claimant aged up to and including 50 years	678.6	462.0	61.1	155.5
Claimant aged over 50 years	228.7	161.1	10.9	56.7

Notes:
1. Caseload figures have been rounded to the nearest 100. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.
2. Age is given at the point the claim commences.
3. Income support disability premium commencements include both new/repeat claims to benefit and those persons moving into the disability premium group from another income support statistical group.
4. Incapacity benefit figures are based on persons claiming long-term or short-term incapacity benefit, national insurance credits only cases, and those persons claiming IB but who have their benefit extinguished for reasons such as an overlap with another benefit, or because of hospitalisation.
5. A person is counted only once in each period, regardless of the number of times they claim and subsequently leave each benefit. Only the first claim in any given period is counted, and it is that claim from which the six-month period has been calculated.
6. Income support claims and status are based on a series of point in time sample enquiries taken in February, May, August and November of each year. These enquiries are a snapshot of live claims on the enquiry date. Claims which start and end between enquiry dates are not captured, and as such numbers of IS claims made may be underestimated.
7. End dates of IS claims are not collected, therefore the claim end dates for IS claimants are estimated. Persons returning within six months will therefore be a six-month period from the estimated end date.
8. Movements between ISDP and IB, and where a claim to one of these benefits terminates and a new claim is made before the six-month point, are classified as still claiming the original benefit. Movements from ISDP to another IS statistical group are classified as receiving another benefit, as the basis of entitlement may have changed.
Source:
DWP—IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. samples





 
14 Jul 2004 : Column 1203W
 

Blind and Partially-Sighted People

Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase funding for rehabilitation and training programmes to meet the needs of blind and partially-sighted people. [182599]

Jane Kennedy: We have no plans to increase funding in these programmes specifically to meet the needs of blind and partially-sighted people at present.

Our ambition is to ensure that the appropriate support mechanisms are in place to enable still more disabled people and those with health problems to move toward, access and retain employment.

We are in the process of developing a Framework for Vocational Rehabilitation, which is expected to be published later this year. We have undertaken an extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders and have spoken at length with colleagues in the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales in order to understand how vocational rehabilitation currently works in the UK and to share thinking on the way forward.

The framework will provide a necessary first step and platform from which to adopt a new approach to vocational rehabilitation in the UK.

Child Support

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Child Support Agency enforcement actions against non-resident parents who refuse to pay child support maintenance. [181628]

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

Letter from Doug Smith to Ms Anne Campbell, dated 14 July 2004:

In reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Child Support Agency enforcement actions against non-resident parents who refuse to pay child support maintenance.

The Agency recognises that it must do more to improve compliance with and enforcement of maintenance calculations. In the last year they have implemented the findings of a review of their enforcement organisation and processes and made a number of improvements.

These include the development of an enforcement policy and strategy designed to support the legislative intent; an accountability framework detailing the responsibilities of the business; and various activities to support management and staff to deliver improvements.

 
14 Jul 2004 : Column 1204W
 

These activities have brought the Agency's enforcement area to a consistent and professional level throughout the organisation, providing a solid basis for continuous improvement activity. Improvements can be seen in the tables below:

Table 1

	Pre review April 2001-July 2002	Post review September 2002-December 2003	Percentage improvement
Liability orders	2,108	4,406	109
Levy of distress (bailiff action)	2,565	3,700	44
Third party debt/arrestments	115	238	107
Charging orders/bill of inhibition	141	238	69

The enforcement sections can use any of these methods to enforce the debt and these methods can be used concurrently. The enforcement section chooses the method appropriate for the individual case.

Table 2: Bailiff collections

	Bailiffs
Financial year end 2002–03 (£) collected	510,572
Financial year end 2003–04 (£) collected	1,581,829
Percentage improvement	210

Table 3: Committal action

	Sentences Served
2001–02	0
2002–03	4
2003–04	8

Table 4:Removal of driving licences

	Driving licences withdrawn	Driving licences suspended
2001–02	0	3
2002–03	1	7
2003–04	1	9

Committal to prison or disqualification from driving is only considered after all other enforcement options have been attempted or discounted. We use these ultimate sanctions as the final lever to achieve compliance rather than as a punitive measure for those non-resident parents who will not pay.

---