| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 Nov 2004 : Column 112W—continued
WORK AND PENSIONS
Agency Staff
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many agency temporary staff have been working for his Department in each of the last five years, excluding those working for agencies for which no data are kept centrally. [195246]
Maria Eagle:
The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
1 Nov 2004 : Column 113W
ATOS Origin
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) pursuant to the answer of 18 October 2004, Official Report, column 478W, on telephone inquiries, whether ATOS Origin employs an incentive or rating scheme in relation to (a) inquiries and (b) mailings related to the direct payment of pensions and benefits; [193486]
(2) pursuant to the answer of 18 October 2004, Official Report, column 478W, on telephone inquiries, what the terms are of the contract with ATOS Origin; and whether incentive schemes are in operation for ATOS Origin operatives. [195293]
Mr. Pond: There is a commercial contract in place to deliver the conversion of benefit and pensions customers to Direct Payment through a customer conversion centre. Elements of the contract contain commercially confidential information and we are unable to disclose them, however I can say that there is no incentive scheme within the terms of this contract for staff involved in the process of converting customers to Direct Payment.
Benefit Payments (Pensioners)
Mr. Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners are in receipt of (a) council tax benefit and (b) housing benefit in (i) Angus and (ii) Scotland. [193450]
Mr. Pond: Information on the numbers of pensioners receiving housing benefit and council tax benefit is not available below National or Government Office Region level. The available information is in the table.
| Benefit units (22) | Beneficiaries (23) | |
|---|---|---|
| Housing benefit | 197,000 | 230,000 |
| Council tax benefit | 275,000 | 324,000 |
(22) Pensioners are defined as pensioner benefit units where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 or over. This may be a single person, couple or family.
(23) 'Beneficiaries' are the sum of claimants and partners aged 60 or over.
Notes:
1. The figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.
2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.
3. Council tax benefit totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.
4. Housing benefit figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.
Source:
Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 2003.
1 Nov 2004 : Column 114W
Correspondence
David Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 9 August sent to the Department for Education and Skills, transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions on 17 August, and passed to Jobcentre Plus, ref. POS(7)10644/0039; and what the reasons are for the delay in replying. [194944]
Jane Kennedy: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to my hon. Friend.
Letter from Stephen Hewitt to Mr. David Winnick, dated 29 October 2004:
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to reply to your question concerning your letter of 9 August to the Department for Education and Skills and to explain the reasons for the delay. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to David Anderson as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus. I am replying on his behalf as a member of the Jobcentre Plus Board.
Your letter was transferred to the Correspondence Team in Jobcentre Plus on 17 August but, unfortunately, we did not receive it. It was only when you enquired about the lack of response that this problem came to light. We finally received your letter on 8 October. I am currently in the process of investigating the issues you have raised and will send you a reply by 5 November. I apologise for the delay and, in light of the problems you have experienced, we will review the processes of both the Department and Jobcentre Plus to ensure this does not recur.
CSA
Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the net administration costs of the Child Support Agency increased by 9.75 per cent. from 2002–03 to 2003–04. [190708]
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 Rob Marris, dated 25 October 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, for what reason the net administration costs of the Child Support Agency increased by 9.75 per cent. from 2002–03 to 2003–04.
The total increase in gross administrative costs between the two years is £28.716 million. £23.149 million of this increase relates to non-staff costs and £5.567 million relates to staff costs.
All fixed price IT services are reported in the accounts of the Department for Work and Pensions. This year there was a change in methodology for recharging this cost. This increased our charge by £6.785 million.
Departmental corporate re-charges for services such as finance, personnel, commercial management, postage, accommodation and assurance increased by £6.974 million.
The expenditure on Child Support Reform is reported in the accounts of the Department for Work and Pensions. The Department for Work and Pension reimburse the Agency for activity on these programmes. The amount of this reimbursement fell in the 2003–04 financial year by £18.202 million.
Efficiencies in other areas have resulted in other non-staff costs principally Agency expenditure on postage, printing and stationery, travel and subsistence and office services falling by £8.812 million.
Last years pay settlement added 4 per cent. to the Agency pay costs, and changes to employer national insurance rates added a further 1 per cent. This was offset because the average number of staff employed was slightly lower in 2003–04 than in the previous year. This is explained further in Note 2 to the Administration Accounts.
Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the non-staff administration costs of the Child Support Agency increased by 27 per cent. from 2002–03 to 2003–04. [190709]
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 Mr. Rob Marris, dated 25 October 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, for what reason the non-staff administration costs of the Child Support Agency increased by 27 per cent. from 2002–03 to 2003–04.
The increase in non-staff costs between the two years is £23.149 million. This is referred to at Note 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d) to the 2003–04 Administrative Account. In summary the main factors increasing expenditure are:
All fixed price IT services are reported in the accounts of the Department for Work and Pensions. This year there was a change in methodology for recharging this cost. This increased our charge by £6.785 million.
Departmental corporate re-charges for services such as finance, personnel, commercial management, postage, accommodation and assurance increased by £6.974 million.
The expenditure on Child Support Reform is reported in the accounts of the Department for Work and Pensions. The Department for Work and Pensions reimburses the Agency for activity on these programmes. The amount of this reimbursement fell in the 2003–04 financial year by £18.202 million.
Efficiencies in other areas have resulted in other non-staff costs principally Agency expenditure on postage, printing and stationery, travel and subsistence and office services falling by £8.812 million.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |